# Good call by the SWP re Workfare campaign Daily Mail front page 27.2.12



## The Black Hand (Feb 27, 2012)

Well the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail front page today, and Telegraph article by Boris Johnson has shown that the capitalists and their apologists have been seriously rattled. They are having to fortify their political postions pronto nationally to try and halt the real problems their workfare policy is having with business pulling out.

Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists. 

The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions. If organisation and political practice gets up and moves, abandons cliches and other baggage which holds political development back, then somehow or other experience is acquired that leads to new options becoming possible and new opportunities. In short, authentic working class political development in theory and practice becomes possible, and of course the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move). The struggles continue


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2012)

Hooray for/down with whatever it is you're saying.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 27, 2012)

Given that the SWP has nothing like the "brand recognition" the CP had (at least among normal people), the ConDem red menace campaign is unlikely to succeed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 27, 2012)

Interestingly enough, the OP reads a bit like an article in Socialist Worker.


----------



## JHE (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> ...the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move).


 
That's just what I said in the pub last night.  People looked at me as if I were talking gibberish.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)




----------



## Balbi (Feb 27, 2012)

SWP taking credit/blame for a mass individual outrage at policy, and the government more than happy to blame them as it'll drive the less SWP types away from paper toting protests.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 27, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Given that the SWP has nothing like the "brand recognition" the CP had (at least among normal people), the ConDem red menace campaign is unlikely to succeed.


 
then thank christ I've never had to read it tbh.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 27, 2012)

Newspaper articles are written by people sat in front of a keyboard.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Well the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail front page today, and Telegraph article by Boris Johnson has shown that the capitalists and their apologists have been seriously rattled. They are having to fortify their political postions pronto nationally to try and halt the real problems their workfare policy is having with business pulling out.
> 
> Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far *better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists*.
> 
> The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions. If organisation and political practice gets up and moves, abandons cliches and other baggage which holds political development back, then somehow or other experience is acquired that leads to new options becoming possible and new opportunities. In short, authentic working class political development in theory and practice becomes possible, and of course the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move). The struggles continue


 

Re the bit in bold, fuck off, some people on here - including anarchists - have been working on welfare stuff in the real world for years, on these workfare schemes for months to years. Just cos I spend some time typing here, doesn't mean I haven't been at the job centre leafleting all day last week (well until my leaflets ran out). If I wasn't ill today, I'd be there now, building to a local meeting about workfare that was arranged before the tesco thing broke.
And you know what, it was people sitting on keyboards and typing that made the workfare stuff blow up - it was that tesco job centre advert and the subsequent backlash on twitter, facebook and forums like these, that turned workfare into the national news story that got swp et al involved.

Me? I'm happy they are involved now. I just would like them to have some fucking humility and not try to claim tesco pulling out as a victory for the RTW campaign without mentioning other groups. Like the 1 hour demo they did in tesco was the only thing that had happened.. and especially cos tesco didn't fully withdraw.
None of this would have made national news without Boycott Workfare, LCAP, Brighton Benefits Campaign, Ipswich Unemployment Centre and no doubt other local groups that I'm not aware of. Or without blogs like Johnny Void/diary of a benefit scrounger/etc.. (Johnny Void is a poster here btw) which created the networks that meant that this job advert made it out in a way that made a difference.


You want to talk about praxis? Boycott Workfare had the national day of action announced weeks before RTW became interested. Associated groups like Brighton Benefits Campaign had already done demos, the one at Poundland got the local store to withdraw. Before the tesco ad, 2 places (Liverpool and London) had declared actions and at least half a dozen others were planning. Now we are up to 22.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions.


 
If you think about it keyboard warriors probably do a hell of a lot more for the publicity of opposition groups than the groups themselves.....


----------



## kavenism (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists.


 
Stopped clock...correct twice a day...etc. And they really are lapping it up. It's enough to make you think they care more about publicity for themselves than the possibility of getting rid of Workfare. Surely not!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

Note: success = getting mentioned in the daily mail.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 27, 2012)

JHE said:


> That's just what I said in the pub last night. People looked at me as if I were talking gibberish.


 
At my local, the authenticity of a dynamic fusion of theory and practice is pretty much a permanent debating point. The Monday night quiz has a round on 'praxis as a means to dialectical change'. Frankly, we can't get enough of that shit.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 27, 2012)

Do we go to the same local IWNW ?


----------



## JHE (Feb 27, 2012)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Well the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail front page today, and Telegraph article by Boris Johnson has shown that the capitalists and their apologists have been seriously rattled. They are having to fortify their political postions pronto nationally to try and halt the real problems their workfare policy is having with business pulling out.
> 
> Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists.
> 
> The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions. If organisation and political practice gets up and moves, abandons cliches and other baggage which holds political development back, then somehow or other experience is acquired that leads to new options becoming possible and new opportunities. In short, authentic working class political development in theory and practice becomes possible, and of course the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move). The struggles continue


 
This whole workfare furore has been brought about largely by keyboard warriors. No matter what the papers say I don't think a handful of small demos outside poundland are what have kicked off all this fuss. UkUncut have been doing simillar demos outside shops up and down the country for ages and nobody has paid them much attention. No, it's the twitteratti (has anyone thought of that one yet or did i just invent it?) and all the people sharing information and relentlessly harassing Tesco et al via their online presence that has done the damage this time.

The reason so many of the papers are so apoplectic with rage over the whole thing is that for once it's not been them setting the agenda. That's why you get all the ad hominem nonsense about the ultra-mega-turbo-super-left and their evil schemes to bring down the government by, err, telling people what the government has actually been doing.


----------



## JHE (Feb 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> it's the twitteratti (has anyone thought of that one yet or did i just invent it?)


 
Some other people thought of it too.  There is even a twit on Twitter called twitterati

http://twitter.com/#!/twitterati


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2012)

JHE said:


> Some other people thought of it too. There is even a twit on Twitter called twitterati
> 
> http://twitter.com/#!/twitterati


 
Oh well. Monkeys, typewriters etc...


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This whole workfare furore has been brought about largely by keyboard warriors. No matter what the papers say I don't think a handful of small demos outside poundland are what have kicked off all this fuss. UkUncut have been doing simillar demos outside shops up and down the country for ages and nobody has paid them much attention. No, it's the twitteratti (has anyone thought of that one yet or did i just invent it?) and all the people sharing information and relentlessly harassing Tesco et al via their online presence that has done the damage this time.


 
Exactly, Its the keyboard warriors who did this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2012)

toblerone3 said:


> Exactly, Its the keyboard warriors who did this.


 
I'm as surprised as anyone to be honest. I always thought all this new media bollocks simply provided people with thousands of new and exciting ways to be ignored.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 27, 2012)

I think there is a need to recognise the advantages of both physical groups, and 'keyboard warriors'.  It is silly to say that one is better than the other, or that those who do one but not the other are less valuable.  If you're housebound due to disability or sickness, it seems very unfair to me to accuse them of being useless or not trying hard enough.  That's the message they are already overwhelmingly receiving from government and media.  I don't think it's correct for the left to start battering them for it too. 

There is a value to both, and it's high time that was recognised and appreciated, instead of all this ridiculous 'well I'm better than you because I handed out this leaflet once and one time I went and did a demo' bullshit.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Well the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail front page today, and Telegraph article by Boris Johnson has shown that the capitalists and their apologists have been seriously rattled. They are having to fortify their political postions pronto nationally to try and halt the real problems their workfare policy is having with business pulling out.
> 
> Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists.
> 
> The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions. If organisation and political practice gets up and moves, abandons cliches and other baggage which holds political development back, then somehow or other experience is acquired that leads to new options becoming possible and new opportunities. In short, authentic working class political development in theory and practice becomes possible, and of course the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move). The struggles continue


 
yeah, splitters

spits..cunts


----------



## Tobermory53 (Feb 27, 2012)

BigTom said:


> some people on here - including anarchists - have been working on welfare stuff in the real world for years, on these workfare schemes for months to years.


 
The cumulative effect of which "work" has been:

(a) the square root of sod all

_or_

(b) the cube root of something immeasurably teensy weensy

Discuss - 15 marks


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


>



Auf Wiedersehen Pet?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

Tobermory53 said:


> The cumulative effect of which "work" has been:
> 
> (a) the square root of sod all
> 
> ...


 
? Without that work we would not be at a point where it looks likely that some or all of the workfare schemes will collapse... how do you think it became a national news story? Why do you think so many companies have pulled out and the government are on the backfoot?
Also, why do you put work in quotations? What do you think we've spent that time doing?


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

I take it you are from the SWP, where were you when the Welfare Reform Bill's were being introduced under NL?, nowhere to be seen, you have just jumped on the bandwagon again. The issue of workfare was bubbling under and once young people based on social media got involved in it was going to become prominent, when it wasn't 'sexy' you had no interest in it.

There is a term for what you do, vampires...


----------



## Poo Flakes (Feb 27, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Re the bit in bold, fuck off, some people on here - including anarchists - have been working on welfare stuff in the real world for years, on these workfare schemes for months to years. Just cos I spend some time typing here, doesn't mean I haven't been at the job centre leafleting all day last week (well until my leaflets ran out). If I wasn't ill today, I'd be there now, building to a local meeting about workfare that was arranged before the tesco thing broke.
> And you know what, it was people sitting on keyboards and typing that made the workfare stuff blow up - it was that tesco job centre advert and the subsequent backlash on twitter, facebook and forums like these, that turned workfare into the national news story that got swp et al involved.
> 
> Me? I'm happy they are involved now. I just would like them to have some fucking humility and not try to claim tesco pulling out as a victory for the RTW campaign without mentioning other groups. Like the 1 hour demo they did in tesco was the only thing that had happened.. and especially cos tesco didn't fully withdraw.
> ...


 
Completely agree with this.  No-one cares about the SWP (or anarchists for that matter). The main issue _should _be the fact that young individuals are being taught to feel indebted to owners of capital who 'selflessly' provide them (crap) jobs in poorer and poorer conditions.  In this case, not even paying them.  This campaign has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with how we treat the poorest in society. 

We are lining up for the Tories' law and order brigade clamp downs on the 'red menace', which will only take the debate away from the actual policies and back to 1980s style Cold War rhetoric.


----------



## catinthehat (Feb 27, 2012)

If the left are going to change anything then perhaps a position of 'all contributions gratefully received' would be better.  The 'we were there before you/did more campaigning/took more action' is often where it all unravels.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

catinthehat said:


> If the left are going to change anything then perhaps a position of 'all contributions gratefully received' would be better. The 'we were there before you/did more campaigning/took more action' is often where it all unravels.


 
I'm not sure if that's in reply to what I said, but if it is it's a total misreading of my post.. the first 2 paras were simply in reply to the "keyboard warriors" thing in the OP (first to point out it's wrong, second to point out that keyboard warriors were really important to this as well), and at the start of my 3rd, I say I'm glad the swp etc are involved now.

I agree with you - but the other bit you've left out is that organisations getting involved with something should pay some respect to those who have already been doing stuff, who have made it an issue that they feel is worth being involved with or have brought it to your attention, or laid the groundwork that has led to the successes that have been achieved.
Ideally they'd just get involved with the campaign that is already existing, rather than do their own thing with no communication.  At least when there is communication we can discuss strategy and decide on tactics and work together, even if they don't join the campaign and we just co-ordinate our actions.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 27, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Well the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail front page today, and Telegraph article by Boris Johnson has shown that the capitalists and their apologists have been seriously rattled. They are having to fortify their political postions pronto nationally to try and halt the real problems their workfare policy is having with business pulling out.
> 
> Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists.
> 
> The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions. If organisation and political practice gets up and moves, abandons cliches and other baggage which holds political development back, then somehow or other experience is acquired that leads to new options becoming possible and new opportunities. In short, authentic working class political development in theory and practice becomes possible, and of course the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move). The struggles continue


What a load of divisive old crap. And it starts from the assumption that the SWP really were the key movers behind the campaign. An assumption taken from the pages of the Daily Mail. A wrong assumption taken from the pages of the Daily Mail.

Good thread!


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> That's just what I said in the pub last night. People looked at me as if I were talking gibberish.


 
Normal day for you then.


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

Just looked at Socialist Unity website, the SWP on there are cock a hoop about their latest outings, no humility, no self-awareness that others often sick and disabled came before them on these issues..


----------



## elfman (Feb 28, 2012)

When I first started campaigning on this issue (when NL were still in power), SWP were nowhere to be seen despite me making it clear on many occasions that they were welcome to be apart of the local group we had set up. Now people have done lots of hard work, both on the streets and the net, building up the issue and making people aware of it, the SWP are all over it, making out that they've actually done something to contribute to the opposition of this.I think this is what a parasite does. Fuck em anyway. People should keep at it and just ignore whatever these people do.


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

Thats very difficult to do, I remember listening to the World Service a few years ago, a package came on about the World Social Forum, which was being held in Venezuela, the first interview, not somewhere from there, or even the WSF, but some hack from Globalise Resistance..

the SF's were a bit abstract, concrete issues like sick and disabled people forced into work are not, they can't afford people to speak on their behalf, especially when their interests are not paramount(building a party is.)


----------



## Random (Feb 28, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists. The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions.


Seeing a political event as an opportunity to attack some people off the internet is pretty much the definition of a keyboard warrior. Commenting on this makes me even worse, of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

I suppose it's a a positive indication that they felt the wind was blowing so hard in this direction that they had to try and do something or let others reap the benefits - but beware the wind!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2012)

Newsflash: decisive blow against keyboard warriers delivered by a long posting to an online forum from er, a keyboard warrier. Meanwhile workfare continues with a few less employers involved. Ends.


----------



## krink (Feb 28, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> it's the twitteratti (has anyone thought of that one yet or did i just invent it?)


 
if i could use twitter I'd post as twatteratti


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

If the SWP were consistent they would be doing something about the 100 tamils being sent back very likely to face torture, etc, but the Campaign to defend Asylum Seekers' appears not to be 'defending' such people at the moment...

its that lack of consistency that is the problem..


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2012)

We probably needn't worry too much about the SWP. surely these days they lack the numbers on the ground to make much of an impact for good or ill in most places. Besides the only people I ever hear talking about "the trot menace" are posh Tories perpetually trapped in memories of their fantasy University life...


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

I never hear _anyone_ talking about 'the trot menace' - neither Tankies nor Tories nor anyone else.  It must be an ultra-nervous thing you find with people who probably also worry about tornadoes in Tooting and herds of elephants in the Orkneys.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 28, 2012)

Gove called opponents to his schools ideas 'trots' with the air of a shit eating cunt about him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

elfman said:


> When I first started campaigning on this issue (when NL were still in power), SWP were nowhere to be seen despite me making it clear on many occasions that they were welcome to be apart of the local group we had set up. Now people have done lots of hard work, both on the streets and the net, building up the issue and making people aware of it, the SWP are all over it, making out that they've actually done something to contribute to the opposition of this.I think this is what a parasite does. Fuck em anyway. People should keep at it and just ignore whatever these people do.


 
Like I said on another thread _apropos_ the Swappies and the journos trying to take credit for this - parasitic middle-class cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Gove called opponents to his schools ideas 'trots' with the air of a shit eating cunt about him.


 
Hardly surprising, given that he *is* a shit-eating cunt.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 28, 2012)

Another point with regards to 'keyboard warriors' is that some of us live in towns that are too small or apathetic for demonstrations to actually make any difference, as evidenced by my local ukuncut organisation who went on a couple of protests, did a 15 minute sit in on a local shop, then started arguing as it was one person doing all the organising, and the others tagging along for the ride when it was convenient for them (i.e. meetings with 1 of the 4 organisers turning up etc).

So therefore how are people who do actually give a fuck go about being vocal and demonstrating if local organisations are tripe and they cant afford to take public transport to london to join in in regular demos.

Twitterrati's have done a huge amount of good work with regards to the anti workfare, and if you seriously want to underestimate the power of social media and carry on soley with demos then organisations will literally achieve nothing.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> I take it you are from the SWP, where were you when the Welfare Reform Bill's were being introduced under NL?, nowhere to be seen, you have just jumped on the bandwagon again. The issue of workfare was bubbling under and once young people based on social media got involved in it was going to become prominent, when it wasn't 'sexy' you had no interest in it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a term for what you do, vampires...


 

I don't know how to put this bluntly, in a way that you will not find offensive.
I cannot pretend I am familiar with today's SWP, but if it is anything like when I was a member, they basically don't give fuck about the "sects" and there prolier than thou ghettoised antics, they only become interested when there is a possibility of something promoting the mass self activity and hopefully direct action of the working class. In short, the sects are not the working class, and the SWP are only* interested in the working class.


*Only, might be an exaggeration. but I think, the SWP's mistakes and failures in the SA/respect and the subsequent sect's conspiracy theories about the SWP has put paid to any serious working relationship.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> If the SWP were consistent they would be doing something about the 100 tamils being sent back very likely to face torture, etc, but the Campaign to defend Asylum Seekers' appears not to be 'defending' such people at the moment...
> 
> its that lack of consistency that is the problem..


 
They are welcome here.Open the Borders .Smash all immigrataion controls?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said on another thread _apropos_ the Swappies and the journos trying to take credit for this - parasitic middle-class cunts.


So they can TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Mwhahahha! ??

Get a job VP!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't know how to put this bluntly, in a way that you will not find offensive.
> I cannot pretend I am familiar with today's SWP, but if it is anything like when I was a member, they basically don't give fuck about the "sects" and there prolier than thou ghettoised antics, they only become interested when there is a possibility of something promoting the mass self activity and hopefully direct action of the working class. In short, the sects are not the working class, and the SWP are only* interested in the working class.
> 
> 
> *Only, might be an exaggeration. but I think, the SWP's mistakes and failures in the SA/respect and the subsequent sect's conspiracy theories about the SWP has put paid to any serious working relationship.


 
what the merry fuck has this got to do with treelover's point?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 28, 2012)

pretty sure he's not as ex swp as he claims


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what the merry fuck has this got to do with treelover's point?


re "bandwagon jumping". Of course they are going to jump into any campaign which looks like promoting the self activity of the working class, in the interests of the working class.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> pretty sure he's not as ex swp as he claims


Why the fuck would I lie?  honestly


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

If rmp3 says he's free of the cult then he is. Just look at his posts here that don't mention the swp over and over and over.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the SWP are only* interested in the working class.


 
The working class has no interest whatsoever in the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The working class has no interest whatsoever in the SWP.


Sadly true, of the entire left. However, they probably have more working class members than any sect you are involved with.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Sadly true, of the entire left. However, they probably have more working class members than any sect you are involved with.


Oh dear. Terrible, terrible move. Inept. Do you play chess rmp3?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Sadly true, of the entire left. However, they probably have more working class members than any sect you are involved with.


 you're not going to win on the numbers game  - I think you'll find that the Labour party still has rather more members and voters from working class backgrounds than the SWP has ever had and in all likelihood ever will have


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

all this talking about other groups being "sects" is quite ironic


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> you're not going to win on the numbers game - I think you'll find that the Labour party still has rather more members and voters from working class backgrounds than the SWP has ever had and in all likelihood ever will have


oooops! sorry mate, I will concede defeat on that one.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> you're not going to win on the numbers game - I think you'll find that the Labour party still has rather more members and voters from working class backgrounds than the SWP has ever had and in all likelihood ever will have


 
I'm sure you are right.  Nevertheless, I've known places where the local SWP membership has been noticeably less posh and off-putting than the people you meet at the local Labour Party meeting.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> you're not going to win on the numbers game - I think you'll find that the Labour party still has rather more members and voters from working class backgrounds than the SWP has ever had and in all likelihood ever will have


Why did you say "from working class backgrounds" rather than working class?

We all _used_ to be working class now.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> all this talking about other groups being "sects" is quite ironic


Depends on your definition.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why did you say "from working class backgrounds" rather than working class?
> 
> We all _used_ to be working class now.


 
Who do you think I am? Melvyn?  Prezza?  Of course there are some of them.  But many straight out w/c types too.  JHE is right too though, esp. in London.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm sure you are right. Nevertheless, I've known places where the local SWP membership has been noticeably less posh and off-putting than the people you meet at the local Labour Party meeting.


 don't tell lies. You will get in trouble with the sects


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Who do you think I am? Melvyn? Prezza? Of course there are some of them. But many straight out w/c types too. JHE is right too though, esp. in London.


But why did you say _from working class backgrounds _rather than w/c?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Depends on your definition.


any definition of "sect" that excludes the SWP is like a definition of "dog" that excludes king charles spaniels.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm sure you are right. Nevertheless, I've known places where the local SWP membership has been noticeably less posh and off-putting than the people you meet at the local Labour Party meeting.


And a lot lot smaller. And where?


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> JHE is right too though, esp. in London.


 
Yes, the places I was thinking of were in London.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 28, 2012)

What exactly is '_the_ working class'? Working class*es* is surely more accurate, and we don't all share the same interests. Maybe that's why the SWP come across (to me at least) like clueless, posh sociology students. Notice they always talk in terms of 'them' when referring to working people. It's a little bit patronising tbh.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But why did you say _from working class backgrounds _rather than w/c?


i don't know Herr Freud.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> JHE is right too though, esp. in London.


 
Where?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

I meant right on the Labour side of his equation - I'd be surprised if there were many predominantly w/c SWP branches in London either.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I meant right on the Labour side of his equation - I'd be surprised if there were many predominantly w/c SWP branches in London either.


An equation means that both sides are right doesn't it? They both have to be? So what were you agreeing with?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What exactly is '_the_ working class'? Working class*es* is surely more accurate, and we don't all share the same interests. Maybe that's why the SWP come across (to me at least) like clueless, posh sociology students. Notice they always talk in terms of 'them' when referring to working people. It's a little bit patronising tbh.


 depends on the purpose of your definition. Depends upon what interests you speak of.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

The follets branch might be the sort of thing that jhe was on about, but where is the w/c swp branch in the same area?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> An equation means that both sides are right doesn't it? They both have to be? So what were you agreeing with?


fucking pedant!  I was agreeing that there's an element of the Labour party membership who would qualify as "posh and off-putting"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

Isn't there just.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And a lot lot smaller. And where?


 

SWP membership a lot smaller?  Yes, course.  You may not meet many members at a local LP branch (ward) meeting, of course.

Places where that's been my personal impression that the LP has been off-puttingly posh?  (i) Hammersmith and (ii) Islington South & Finsbury (which has a predominantly working-class population, BTW, despite the very posh bit that we've all heard of).  Other people have told me of the same impression in other parts of London.  (This was all a long time ago.)

I have had virtually no contact with LP or SWP in Nottingham and so make no comment on the local groups.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> depends on the purpose of your definition. Depends upon what interests you speak of.


 
I guess I'm just speaking of my own experience with friends of different employment status'. I can see a clear dividing line between  those who have a trade, and those who are employed by others. Then there are friends who live in inner-city areas that suffer particular problems relating gang crime and urban decay. All are working class in the broadest definition, but the type of policies that would help inner city areas might not be supported by a tradesman, for example.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

There tends to be just the odd one or two hyper posh public school types - like old Fabians or something - and then you get middle class (frequently black or asian) businessmen, lawyers, accountants etc., along (in London) with the policy wonk/researcher crowd who work at IPPR or something. 

I'm basically talking CLP wide - there hardly is a local functioning party branch in my area - just the (shit) local councillors basically.


----------



## trevhagl (Feb 28, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Well the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail front page today, and Telegraph article by Boris Johnson has shown that the capitalists and their apologists have been seriously rattled. They are having to fortify their political postions pronto nationally to try and halt the real problems their workfare policy is having with business pulling out.
> 
> Of course anarchists have long been campaigning against welfare policy, against forced labour in prisons (working for business in prisons for fek all) and the SWPs involvement is 'better late than never', but they did call it right this time in practice too. Far better than the ultra left that hang about U75 doing fek all and that includes some anarchists.
> 
> The clear lesson is that those who sit about keyboard warrior like with no ambition, somehow waiting for the masses to wake up and join them are simply touting different variants of elitist illusions. If organisation and political practice gets up and moves, abandons cliches and other baggage which holds political development back, then somehow or other experience is acquired that leads to new options becoming possible and new opportunities. In short, authentic working class political development in theory and practice becomes possible, and of course the holy grail of *praxis* can be achieved (the dynamic fusion of theory and practice on the move). The struggles continue


 
my sentiments entirely! May you be stalked as much as me now!!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

Trev Hegel speaks.


----------



## trevhagl (Feb 28, 2012)

catinthehat said:


> If the left are going to change anything then perhaps a position of 'all contributions gratefully received' would be better. The 'we were there before you/did more campaigning/took more action' is often where it all unravels.


 
this is also true


----------



## trevhagl (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Trev Hegel speaks.


 
credit to anyone doing something constructive , even YOU between all the bitching!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I guess I'm just speaking of my own experience with friends of different employment status'. I can see a clear dividing line between those who have a trade, and those who are employed by others. Then there are friends who live in inner-city areas that suffer particular problems relating gang crime and urban decay. All are working class in the broadest definition, but the type of policies that would help inner city areas might not be supported by a tradesman, for example.


Well that's fine if all you want out of the definition is to more vividly describe the appearance of things. But the SWP have a particular perspective, a class struggle perspective. Their definition is about attempting to understand the relationship between those who rule, and those who are ruled.


I'm not saying you're use of classes, rather than class is illegitimate. There are plenty more people on here even with a class struggle perspective who would agree with you. I'm just saying if you're going to judge somebody's use of the term, it might be worth getting a more understanding of why and how they use it.

 I prefer the term working class precisely because it accentuates their shared interests .


----------



## co-op (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> fucking pedant! I was agreeing that there's an element of the Labour party membership who would qualify as "posh and off-putting"


 
Check out this one from Lambeth - Herne Hill (or should that be "Hahn Hill"?). I don't frighten easy but she puts the creeps on me.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

Speaking as someone who comes from a solidly working class background, I have no problem at all with none working class people, who promote the self activity of the working class in the interest of the working class. After all the working class isn't perfect. It does have members who vote BNP, Conservative and other such misdemeanours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So they can TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Mwhahahha! ??
> 
> Get a job VP!


 
Fuck off, cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> re "bandwagon jumping". Of course they are going to jump into any campaign which looks like promoting the self activity of the working class, in the interests of the working class.


 
Note the words "self-activity of the working class". What the maggot-cocked fuck does the SWP have to do with the *self-activity* of the working classes? Fuck-all, but of course they'll jump on any fucking bandwagon where they can garner publicity and sell a few copies of their shitty rag.
And who the fuck are they to assume they represent the interests of the working classes, the arrogant pissant shit-bags?

Parasitic middle-class cunts!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But why did you say _from working class backgrounds _rather than w/c?


 
Self-projection, innit?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Note the words "self-activity of the working class". What the maggot-cocked fuck does the SWP have to do with the *self-activity* of the working classes? Fuck-all, but of course they'll jump on any fucking bandwagon where they can garner publicity and sell a few copies of their shitty rag.
> And who the fuck are they to assume they represent the interests of the working classes, the arrogant pissant shit-bags?
> 
> Parasitic middle-class cunts!


Go on VP, give to em!  Your indefatigable your one-man campaign to stop the SWP  TAKING OVER THE WORLD, is inspiring.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 28, 2012)

co-op said:


> Check out this one from Lambeth - Herne Hill (or should that be "Hahn Hill"?). I don't frighten easy but she puts the creeps on me.



She is wonderful. She has clearly done her homework in listening to the people about their local problems. I wonder if she was elected and did she fulfill her promise to clean up the town  er...of dogshit. It is much safer to talk of such things than politics especially if you are a posh barrister standing for the Labour Party. I wonder what issues the other candidates had.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Go on VP, give to em! Your indefatigable your one-man campaign to stop the SWP TAKING OVER THE WORLD, is inspiring.


 
I don't need to campaign to stop the SWP taking over the world. There's no chance of that. Stopping them arsing up genuine protests with their paper-selling bullshit, though. That's a different story.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> She is wonderful. She has clearly done her homework in listening to the people about their local problems. I wonder if she was elected....


 
Yup:  http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=2897


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

"The reason I was called to the bar was that <gulp> I have a real sense of social justice" 
"One of the little things I really care about is dog poo"


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't need to campaign to stop the SWP taking over the world. There's no chance of that. Stopping them arsing up genuine protests with their paper-selling bullshit, though. That's a different story.


Awww, your being coy now. Go on, share your conspiracy theory with us again.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

I agree with the posh lady on dog shit


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

Trots don't care about dog shit.  Anarcho-Wotsits don't care about dog shit.  More fool them!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> Trots don't care about dog shit. Anarcho-Wotsits don't care about dog shit. More fool them!


Does the BNP care about white dog shit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Awww, your being coy now. Go on, share your conspiracy theory with us again.


 
What, the one about the Central Committee not giving a fuck about real politics because they earn a living out of being the CC? About how the memberships churns and rarely builds because people get pissed off with the CC never seeming to accomplish anything permanent, about the possibility that the *reason* fuck-all is permanently achieved is because the CC like it that way? That one?

Sad thing for you is that you're the only one laughing about it.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

They may 'earn a living out of being the CC', but I don't think the pay is any good. I bet if you divided it by the hours they devote to Trottery, you'd get a rate far far below the Nat Min Wage.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> They may 'earn a living out of being the CC', but I don't think the pay is any good. I bet if you divided it by the hours they devote to Trottery, you'd get a rate far far below the Nat Min Wage.


Oooooh, now you have done it. He'll declare a fatwah on you!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, the one about the Central Committee not giving a fuck about real politics because they earn a living out of being the CC? About how the memberships churns and rarely builds because people get pissed off with the CC never seeming to accomplish anything permanent, about the possibility that the *reason* fuck-all is permanently achieved is because the CC like it that way? That one?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

I do like rmp3's counter-suggestions that the reason they achieve fuck all is due to their inability incompetence, shitness, ignorance, isolation from the w/c, middle class dominance of the party and so what it presents as w/c interests, brown leather jackets, arrogance and so on.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> all this talking about other groups being "sects" is quite ironic
> 
> 
> ResistanceMP3 said:
> ...


Now this is a definition of a sect>


ViolentPanda said:


> What, the one about the Central Committee not giving a fuck about real politics because they earn a living out of being the CC? About how the memberships churns and rarely builds because people get pissed off with the CC never seeming to accomplish anything permanent, about the possibility that the *reason* fuck-all is permanently achieved is because the CC like it that way? That one?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> They may 'earn a living out of being the CC', but I don't think the pay is any good. I bet if you divided it by the hours they devote to Trottery, you'd get a rate far far below the Nat Min Wage.


 
True, but that's their problem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Oooooh, now you have done it. He'll declare a fatwah on you!


 
What, am I a Muslim, to declare _fatwas_ now?

Idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Now this is a definition of a sect>


 
And you're the very definition of a dupe.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, am I a Muslim, to declare _fatwas_ now?
> 
> Idiot.


Whoosh!  Lighten up you sect nutter.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And you're the very definition of a dupe.


Of course, me and every other SWP member are dupes of a _central_ committee who have no interest what so ever beyond earning a living.  There publicatiuons are just 40+ years of lies to that single aim.

Did you see the palace Duncan Hallas lived in?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Of course, me and every other SWP member are dupes of a _central_ committee who have no interest what so ever beyond earning a living.


I thought you weren't a member and had nothing to do with the swp for a decade?


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

Channel 4 News this evening:  Interview with a young man about some work experience scheme.  He was unhappy because he wasn't really given the choice, though ministers say it's voluntary.

He said he'd never heard of the SWP until yesterday and in the last election he voted Conservative!


----------



## co-op (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> "The reason I was called to the bar was that <gulp> I have a real sense of social justice"
> "One of the little things I really care about is dog poo"


 


Yep I think she got briefed, I can almost hear it. "Tell them you care about _S-O-C-I-A-L J-U-S-T-I-C-E_, you don't need to know what it is".

The best bit of her deep deep concern for social justice is that under this video there's a comment on youtube, dunno if it's true but I like to believe it whatever,

*"Leanne Targett-Parker was advertising for an intern to work unpaid in her offices in Lambeth, one of the poorest parts of London. And her background is in employment law."*
*dim, posh as fuck, careerist hypocrite.*
*guardian. co.uk/discussion/comment-perma**link/10256051*
* codelocator   10 months ago" *

With these kind of nakedly careerist wankers who would obviously be in whatever party wins in her ward I always take a quick look at their CVs and I noticed she is still a governor of a school in Rochester where she went to school, some single-sex, semi-posh Kent Grammar Schoolalike. I don't by any chance suppose she really wants to get hold of one of the Labour seats in North Kent? These types are fucking see-through.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

co-op said:


> With these kind of nakedly careerist wankers who would obviously be in whatever party wins in her ward I always take a quick look at their CVs and I noticed she is still a governor of a school in Rochester where she went to school, some single-sex, semi-posh Kent Grammar Schoolalike. I don't by any chance suppose she really wants to get hold of one of the Labour seats in North Kent? These types are fucking see-through.


 
If she aspires to be an MP, she'll have to improve her speaking skills. I thought that for a barrister she was a little inarticulate and nervous.

Still, credit where it's due. She's right on dog shit. Solidarity with the anti-dog shit posh lady!


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Did you see the palace Duncan Hallas lived in?


do you know his history? nothing better illustrates the nature of the swp leadership than that.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> do you know his history. nothing better illustrates the nature of the swp leadership than that.


 
I'm not sure what you mean there.  Surely you are not suggesting that Hallas was typical of the SWP leadership.  He was very atypical!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> do you know his history? nothing better illustrates the nature of the swp leadership than that.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/index.htm ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Of course, me and every other SWP member are dupes...


 
Thought you hadn't been a Swappie for 10 years?
And not everyone, just you. 



> ...of a _central_ committee who have no interest what so ever beyond earning a living. There publicatiuons are just 40+ years of lies to that single aim.


 
I didn't say that they had no interest.

That's alright though, just read anything you want into what I've said, you dishonest little peckerhead.



> Did you see the palace Duncan Hallas lived in?


 
Duncan had the misfortune to be an alcoholic. He could have been as rich as Croesus and he'd probably still have lived in somewhere that resembled a pig-sty full of books.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I thought you weren't a member and had nothing to do with the swp for a decade?


 
That must be the other rmp3.

Oh wait...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> do you know his history? nothing better illustrates the nature of the swp leadership than that.


Did you see the palace Tony Cliff died?

Anyway, forget that.  Are you seriously suggesting the SWP are motivated by pay packets, rather than politics?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm not sure what you mean there. Surely you are not suggesting that Hallas was typical of the SWP leadership. He was very atypical!


what i was actually referring to was the time of the is opposition, in itself pretty illustrative as to how the swp works.

hallas was atypical but was always a staunch loyalist. and to a point, it was comrades like him who made the typical leadership possible.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Anyway, forget that. Are you seriously suggesting the SWP are motivated by pay packets, rather than politics?


 
Are you SWP or aren't you?  And if not what faults do you find with them?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/index.htm ?


http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/1997/locust/


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thought you hadn't been a Swappie for 10 years?


 could be 12 now.



> And not everyone, just you.


 so the members are not dupes of the Central committee? Seems like you have changed your line.






> I didn't say that they had no interest.
> 
> That's alright though, just read anything you want into what I've said, you dishonest little peckerhead.


 


JHE said:


> They may 'earn a living out of being the CC', but I don't think the pay is any good. I bet if you divided it by the hours they devote to Trottery, you'd get a rate far far below the Nat Min Wage.


 
I don't need to make up stupid conspiracy theories about the anarchists . I accept they are politically motivated , as are the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Are you SWP or aren't you? And if not what faults do you find with them?


 Give us a minute.


ResistanceMP3 said:


> my state of political consciousness has been acknowledged, and described many times by myself. From having no interest in politics, I engaged with Socialist worker for about 16 years. They completely transformed my view of the world. It was quite revelatory experience. I remember saying at the time, it was like I had had cataracts, and a lot of the world that at one time made no sense, i.e. Northern Ireland, now made sense [in terms of "the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle"].
> I haven't had any involvement of any note with Socialist worker, for about 10 years. However, the ideology, the dogma, however people want to describe it, colours my view of virtually everything. This remains as true today, as the day I stop being an active member.
> So yes, my political glasses effect my interpritation. From this I would expect people to do two things 1. Understand that this WILL lead to misunderstandings. 2. Realise that they too have political glasses, preconceptions, which effect their interpretation of my words.
> In my experience Socialist worker, at least the one I recognise as the real one, is misrepresented in almost every post people respond to me with. Sometimes I suspect this is malicious, but it is so sustained I am convinced it isn't.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Did you see the palace Tony Cliff died?
> 
> Anyway, forget that. Are you seriously suggesting the SWP are motivated by pay packets, rather than politics?


i'm not. no. not at all.

what motivates people is far more subtle than that and anyway, the problem the swp has isn't down to any individual (not even cliff, or healey, or trotsky, possibly lenin but that's another argument*), but a structural one.


*or is it?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Give us a minute.


might need longer?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> ResistanceMP3 said: ↑
> my state of political consciousness has been acknowledged, and described many times by myself. From having no interest in politics, I engaged with Socialist worker for about 16 years. They completely transformed my view of the world. It was quite revelatory experience. I remember saying at the time, it was like I had had cataracts, and a lot of the world that at one time made no sense, i.e. Northern Ireland, now made sense [in terms of "the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle"].​I haven't had any involvement of any note with Socialist worker, for about 10 years. However, the ideology, the dogma, however people want to describe it, colours my view of virtually everything. This remains as true today, as the day I stop being an active member.​So yes, my political glasses effect my interpritation. From this I would expect people to do two things 1. Understand that this WILL lead to misunderstandings. 2. Realise that they too have political glasses, preconceptions, which effect their interpretation of my words.​In my experience Socialist worker, at least the one I recognise as the real one, is misrepresented in almost every post people respond to me with. Sometimes I suspect this is malicious, but it is so sustained I am convinced it isn't.​


the religious imagery in this post is also quite telling of another problem the swp has.


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Did you see the palace Tony Cliff died?
> 
> Anyway, forget that. Are you seriously suggesting the SWP are motivated by pay packets, rather than politics?


 
I think the question of motivation is quite interesting and you are quite right to reject the idea that they are in it for the money.

I once attended a meeting at which Chanie Rosenberg was asked how she and Cliff kept going in the days when their group had hardly any members. Her answer was, 'We didn't know anything else!' I think that's probably a big part of it for some of the long-stay SWPers: they don't know any other life. What would they do if they weren't trotting?

Then there must be some satisfactions to be gained:
- to be thought well of by your comrades
- to have high status among the membership
- to feel you have a worthwhile intellectual life and understand the world better than ordinary mortals
- to feel important and perhaps a little heroic sometimes (though without too much risk or sacrifice)
- to have power albeit in a fairly small world (there might be 2000 members - in workplaces some unpleasant people enjoy exercising power in much smaller organisations)
- to maintain friendships, since all your friends are in 'The Party'

There is at least one other possible advantage, though it applies only to parts of the leadership: access to young attractive party members who might have sex with you despite your age and looks.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> i'm not. no. not at all.
> 
> what motivates people is far more subtle than that and anyway, the problem the swp has isn't down to any individual (not even cliff, or healey, or trotsky, possibly lenin but that's another argument*), but a structural one.
> 
> ...


 if that structural argument, is the one I'm thinking of, I accept that is a good arguement. Not one I agree with, but a well constructed argument. However, that isn't what violent Panda is saying.

In my opinion, his arguments veer between structural determinism, and conspiracy theory. This conspiracy theory was the argument to which my comment was in response.

If your argument is the other one violent Panda uses, comparing the SWP bureaucracy to the trade union bureaucracy, it is in my humble opinion structural determinism. He clearly hasn't understood the SWP argument, trade union bureaucracy.

ETA "Or is it?" why don't you out what your thinking ? it doesn't matter if it's not fully rounded.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> I think the question of motivation is quite interesting and you are quite right to reject the idea that they are in it for the money.
> 
> I once attended a meeting at which Chanie Rosenberg was asked how she and Cliff kept going in the days when their group had hardly any members. Her answer was, 'We didn't know anything else!' I think that's probably a big part of it for some of the long-stay SWPers: they don't know any other life. What would they do if they weren't trotting?
> 
> ...


 which is where my explanation, of my affiliation comes into play. I have none of those reasons for remaining with a Socialist worker outlook, and yet I do so.

Socialist worker managed to make me a lifelong committed socialist in three years. Anarchists haven't even managed to give me sensible understanding of their ideology in 10.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> the religious imagery in this post is also quite telling of another problem the swp has.


 I cannot accept responsibility for you projecting onto my atheist words, religious imagery. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was being honest. Those were the words in which I expressed myself as a raw recruit. If you don't consider the works of Karl Marx revelatory, I'm surprised.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> which is where my explanation, of my affiliation comes into play. I have none of those reasons for remaining with a Socialist worker outlook, and yet I do so.


that's because you're a bit like a religious nut.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

> I was blind/but now i see/you made a believer/out of me....


 
so what faults do you find with the SWP then, if you continue to share their general worldview?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> might need longer?


 I was always quite surprised by the level of vitriolic hatred SOME Labour councillors show towards the SWP. I would have thought they wouldn't consider them much more than an irritant. Do you share this level of vitriolic hatred? If so why? Just interested what motivates you.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I cannot accept responsibility for you projecting onto my atheist words, religious imagery. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was being honest. Those were the words in which I expressed myself as a raw recruit. If you don't consider the works of Karl Marx revelatory, I'm surprised.


revelatory experience
like i had cataracts (heal me cliff! remove the scales from my eyes!)
dogma
finally dealing the martyr card at the end.

marx wasn't that much of a revelation. i had been taught the basics at sixteen by the feller who ran the yts i was on. he had been a director at longbridge.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

nothing more than a mild anthropological interest - why aren't you SWP any more?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> that's because you're a bit like a religious nut.


hey, spoke like a sect.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> revelatory experience
> like i had cataracts (heal me cliff! remove the scales from my eyes!)
> dogma
> finally dealing the martyr card at the end.


ok. if that's your level of explanation fine.  IMO it's worse than VP conspiracy theory.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> nothing more than a mild anthropological interest - why aren't you SWP any more?


Snap!  I have a similar interest in anarchism.

No political schism. In the end it was a choice between my politics and my marriag.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> hey, spoke like a sect.


i'm not trying to have a pop. it's understandable. it gives you a way to get your bearings and it's not really even done in a conscious way. the swp has a lot of it, talk of "the wilderness" and such. it acts like a religion to a lot of people.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> so what faults do you find with the SWP then, if you continue to share their general worldview?


 politically? None I can think of. In practice, they have made a lot of mistakes.


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> There is at least one other possible advantage, though it applies only to parts of the leadership: access to young attractive party members who might have sex with you despite your age and looks.


 

damn, i was about to post that, imo, it was/is a form of abuse...


----------



## JHE (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> it acts like a religion to a lot of people.


I agree, but that's not just the SWP.

In my day, meetings were mostly in pubs (in rooms above).  We drank before, during and after the meeting and, IIRC, we even smoked (fags, not joints) during the meeting. That all suited me very well. I don't think even the most liberal religious sect would have been half as congenial.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

discokermit said:


> i'm not trying to have a pop. it's understandable. it gives you a way to get your bearings and it's not really even done in a conscious way. the swp has a lot of it, talk of "the wilderness" and such. It acts like a religion to a lot of people.


 it acts like a science. It is an evidence-based understanding, not a belief-based understanding. A world of difference.

Religious people only know that they believe, scientific people believe that they know. [I say believe that they know ,because science evolves, we often find that what we knew for fact at one time, can be transformed by new evidence.]



*Sorry if my comment caused offence. What I meant was, often political sects ridicule their opponents, rather than taking on the arguments.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> damn, i was about to post that, imo, it was/is a form of abuse...


 jealousy?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 28, 2012)

JHE said:


> I agree, but that's not just the SWP.
> 
> In my day, meetings were mostly in pubs (in rooms above) and, IIRC, we smoked during the meeting. That suited me very well. I don't think even the most liberal religious sect would have been half as congenial.


i agree. i loved it. sitting in pubs with people who'd been in the wil and the rcp, telling stories about the picket of saltley gas works, miners strike, wapping, discussing stuff. a readymade social life full of lovely people. just when the tories were looking invincible.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 29, 2012)

The Black Hand got you all yapping away like Highland terriers I see. I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Random (Feb 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> jealousy?


Jesus that's a low remark


----------



## Random (Feb 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I have none of those reasons for remaining with a Socialist worker outlook, and yet I do so.





> - to feel you have a worthwhile intellectual life and understand the world better than ordinary mortals


----------



## Random (Feb 29, 2012)

JHE said:


> I think the question of motivation is quite interesting and you are quite right to reject the idea that they are in it for the money.
> 
> I once attended a meeting at which Chanie Rosenberg was asked how she and Cliff kept going in the days when their group had hardly any members. Her answer was, 'We didn't know anything else!' I think that's probably a big part of it for some of the long-stay SWPers: they don't know any other life. What would they do if they weren't trotting?
> 
> ...


Would also add, having a high profile in the media and enjoying fame/notoriety


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it acts like a science. It is an evidence-based understanding, not a belief-based understanding. A world of difference.


 
That would be a pseudo-science; and posted without a trace of irony or self awareness. As an anti-dote try a small dose of Engels on the historical sciences and then come back with a straight face and explain how the SWP is scientific in anything but a self seeking rhetorical manner.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why did you say "from working class backgrounds" rather than working class?
> 
> We all _used_ to be working class now.





> self-projection, innit


 

I've been thinking about this, and it comes down to changes it what class ascriptions entail. I'm certainly not saying I've ceased to be working class a la Bragg - culture's taken over

But at the same time being working class today doesn't seem to entail what it meant for my grandparents, say; there isn't the same sense of cohesive community. Today, particularly in London, there's a much greater sense of fragmentation and atomisation. So I guess I meant more than just "objectively working class" but from a background where an earlier sense of cohesive class community is still remembered and valued, even if it isn't expressed in the same way any more.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

The BBC have joined in the bigging up of the SWP.

Hmmm.

Why now? What's the agenda?

The SWP has slowly and quietly been fading from the scene over the last few years and is surely a shadow of it's former self.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> The BBC have joined in the bigging up of the SWP.
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> ...


 
I note that Melanie Phillips is quoted frothing at the mouth in the piece. Wasn't she originally a Trot back in the 70s, or have I confused her with another right wing journalist?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

As a privately educated oxbridge girl she of course went through a soft-left-labour phase - trot stuff i have never heard about.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

Another BBC article...this time brandishing the spectre of "anarchists" according to IDS and "trotskyites" according Cameron.

desperate stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

i thought that she was just a vaguely left wing liberal, didn't know she'd been a trot.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> Another BBC article...this time brandishing the spectre of "anarchists" according to IDS and "trotskyites" according Cameron.
> 
> desperate stuff.


Odd this - remember our stuff in the 90s that never got any purchase beyond ourselves.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Odd this - remember our stuff in the 90s that never got any purchase beyond ourselves.


 
What are you referring to?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Anti-jsa stuff, never managed to strike a popular note.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 29, 2012)

Tory hating exhaustion, and a media indifference. We're less than two years in this time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Not sure what you're replying to there balbi.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Anti-jsa stuff, never managed to strike a popular note.


 
well probably cos of the jobs situation (or lack of them).


----------



## Balbi (Feb 29, 2012)

The early nineties. There'd been eleven years of the shit to slog through.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Anti-jsa stuff, never managed to strike a popular note.


 
Aye. Pretty grim slog that one.

I guess that the absence of the degree of fear of redundancy amongst those who had jobs, left the unemployed more isolated and with less chance of such campaigns being contagious. 

I also remember some Unions, and the left (notably the SP) being pretty hostile to action by the unemployed.

More more divided and cut-off I think.

Ironically these days there seems to be much more of a feeling of "we're all in this together" as the govt's assault seems to be the economic equivalent of some drunk standing outside the pub yelling "C'mon on! I'll take the lot of you..."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

revol68 said:


> well probably cos of the jobs situation (or lack of them).


Also, and i was hoping to bring this out, was because we never made the connection with wider w/c - as it was self defence for a relatively small group. Political use of that space was/is entirely reliant on other things - running around being a super-unemployed-activist won't change this. I've lost the thread of what i was saying actually.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Also, and i was hoping to bring this out, was because we never made the connection with wider w/c - as it was self defence for a relatively small group. Political use of that space was/is entirely reliant on other things - running around being a super-unemployed-activist won't change this. I've lost the thread of what i was saying actually.


 
True there was a big element of PANSiEs running the anti-JSA campaigns, like me.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> Aye. Pretty grim slog that one.
> 
> I guess that the absence of the degree of fear of redundancy amongst those who had jobs, left the unemployed more isolated and with less chance of such campaigns being contagious.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah the idea of picking off targets one by one, starting with the most marginalised has been somewhat lost with this government. It's like they're drunk on giddiness and reckon this is their chance to really go for it, to such an extent that even the IMF raised concerns about the speed and depth of their cuts.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> True there was a big element of PANSiEs running the anti-JSA campaigns, like me.


Which reminds me, there was good thing in Do or Die (just recalling you wrote for them) from L. about Pansies. Very very different times.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

What are pansies?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

politically active not seeking employment


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 29, 2012)

Was that an actual acronym?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

OK. Getting harder to do that now I think. Unless you have stacks of money.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Was that an actual acronym?


It was a real _thing_.


----------



## Random (Feb 29, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Was that an actual acronym?


It was a real category that job centre staff would use to deny people benefits iirc


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

lol.. IDS now saying it woz that anarchists wot done it:

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...anarchists-for-trashing-forced-labour-scheme/

so there SWP!


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 29, 2012)

Why don't we JUST BE GLAD that all sorts of assorted Lefties (and their concerned, outraged mums and dads too) have put a spoke in the Coalition's "modern slavery for a modern age" scheme. It's VERY "Life of Brian" a lot of the stuff on this tread, fun, but really NOT good.

"People's Front for Judea..............

WANKERS !


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

anyone seen this weeks party notes?

''We must build on this great success comrades''


----------



## belboid (Feb 29, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Why don't we JUST BE GLAD that all sorts of assorted Lefties (and their concerned, outraged mums and dads too) have put a spoke in the Coalition's "modern slavery for a modern age" scheme. It's VERY "Life of Brian" a lot of the stuff on this tread, fun, but really NOT good.
> 
> "People's Front for Judea..............
> 
> WANKERS !


 
it is rather sad.  Surely those campaigners pissed off at the SWP for getting the 'glory' should work out why they had some success, rather than whining about the fact that it was the SWP and making up quotes


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

because they knew exactly the time to jump onto the bandwagon, they know when an issue is reaching critical mass, they did nothing to create it though...

vampires...


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 29, 2012)

Random said:


> It was a real category that job centre staff would use to deny people benefits iirc





butchersapron said:


> It was a real _thing_.


 
I thought as much.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 29, 2012)

In your book treelover, the SWP are damned if they don't and damned if they do.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I refuse to be sucked into this car-crash of a thread ba. Ta, ta.


...and?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 29, 2012)

I refuse to be sucked into this car-crash of a thread ba. Ta, ta.


----------



## killer b (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> The BBC have joined in the bigging up of the SWP.
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> Why now? What's the agenda?


driving dissenting people towards the least effective outlet for their dissent? the quickest way for activists to burn out is by joining the SWP...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I refuse to be sucked into this car-crash of a thread ba. Ta, ta.


Oh how you diminish us by this selfish action.


----------



## killer b (Feb 29, 2012)

if i were a more conspiracy minded person, i'd be sure that the SWP was a state asset. i suppose the truth is probably more depressing.


----------



## belboid (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> because they knew exactly the time to jump onto the bandwagon, they know when an issue is reaching critical mass, they did nothing to create it though...
> 
> vampires...


so, you echo the rights bullshit, even tho doing so undermines your aim.

How are you able to smell?


----------



## belboid (Feb 29, 2012)

killer b said:


> if i were a more conspiracy minded person, i'd be sure that the SWP was a state asset. i suppose the truth is probably more depressing.


naah, that was the RCP


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

killer b said:


> driving dissenting people towards the least effective outlet for their dissent? the quickest way for activists to burn out is by joining the SWP...



Nah. I don't think it's quite that. More a mixture of deluded red baiting/scaremongering, public schoolboy ignorance of street level politics and a desire to put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> Nah. I don't think it's quite that. More a mixture of deluded red baiting/scaremongering, public schoolboy ignorance of street level politics and a desire to put the genie back in the bottle.


 

Nobody I know IRL would have a scooby as to who the SWP are without explanation.

This is a shit re-run of the late 70s and the tories are still pulling out cards for a game that has changed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Nobody I know IRL would have a scooby as to who the SWP are without explanation.


says more about the people you know than perhaps you intended.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> because they knew exactly the time to jump onto the bandwagon, they know when an issue is reaching critical mass, they did nothing to create it though...
> 
> vampires...


and you did i suppose.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Nobody I know IRL would have a scooby as to who the SWP are without explanation.
> 
> This is a shit re-run of the late 70s and the tories are still pulling out cards for a game that has changed.



Agreed. 

Equally, the SWP ain't got the numbers anymore to give this plan legs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 29, 2012)

@ pickmans

Yeah, people who don't know about fringe politics. The swine.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

eh, welfare cuts are a fringe issue?


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

ah, ok..


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> eh, welfare cuts are a fringe issue?


you thick or summat? that's not what dc said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> @ pickmans
> 
> Yeah, people who don't know about fringe politics. The swine.


most people would clump them together with groups like the mormons, hare krishna and so on who you hear about but hope never to see.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

http://socialwelfareadvocacy.wordpr...paigners-for-opposing-workfare-protestletter/


An open letter from the very broad based anti-workfare campaign, lets hope they can reclaim it from the far left groups, no problem with them participating though..


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://socialwelfareadvocacy.wordpr...paigners-for-opposing-workfare-protestletter/
> 
> 
> An open letter from the very broad based anti-workfare campaign, lets hope they can reclaim it from the far left groups, no problem with them participating though..


by 'very broad based ... lets [_sic_] hope they can reclaim it from the far left groups', i take it you mean they're liberals.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and you did i suppose.


 
To be fair to treelover he did.


----------



## Zabo (Feb 29, 2012)

chilango said:


> Another BBC article...this time brandishing the spectre of "anarchists" according to IDS and "trotskyites" according Cameron.


 
Good interview with Bradley by Murdoch's dribbling, ex-bum boy - lick, lick. Reminds me of a postcard I had on my office wall for years.

"And on my right, a well dressed, mature gentleman from the Conservative Party. On my left, a bald headed, uncouth coot from the Trotsky Party."


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Good interview with Bradley by Murdoch's dribbling, ex-bum boy - lick, lick. Reminds me of a postcard I had on my office wall for years.
> 
> "And on my right, a well dressed, mature gentleman from the Conservative Party. On my left, a bald headed, uncouth coot from the Trotsky Party."


 
I see what you mean.  Neil certainly interviewed Bradley differently, to put it mildly.

For much of that, I thought Bradley did quite well.  He managed to avoid coming across as a loon, which was what Neil was trying to provoke.

Nevertheless, it has to be said:  Bradley's attempt to explain the revolution he wants by mentioning "the sort of thing that's going on in Egypt at the moment" was excruciating!  Neil jumped in immediately to point out that "that's ended up with the Muslim Brotherhood".  The SWP really has fooled itself so deeply that it cannot distinguish between its "socialism" and the victory of Islamism!


----------



## Zabo (Feb 29, 2012)

Agree JHE. He didn't do too bad and to be generous he probably was a bit nervy. Had it been me I'd have smacked the fucker - Neil that is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair to treelover he did.


 let's let him speak for himself, eh


----------



## discokermit (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Nobody I know IRL would have a scooby as to who the SWP are without explanation.
> 
> This is a shit re-run of the late 70s and the tories are still pulling out cards for a game that has changed.


maybe so but i think that of all the groups of the left, they have the highest profile at the moment. they are geared up for recruiting people who are new to politics, their turnover rate is very high which means they must recruit a lot of people.

i don't think it's a rerun of the late seventies at all. the tories are playing a completely different game. this is more like late eighties/just before the poll tax tories.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> let's let him speak for himself, eh


 

what a knob, picking up on someones punctuation...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> what a knob, picking up on someones punctuation...


what a cunt, unable to substantiate his position


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

This place is extraordinarily abusive


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

JHE said:


> This place is extraordinarily abusive


bollocks


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

PM, just what do you add to the debate around challenging welfare reform?, not much as far as i can see..


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 29, 2012)

As someone who has as much personally to be permanently aggrieved at the SWP for as any olde Leftie (and ex member - expelled), Nevertheless at this point in the struggle against the austerity offensive I'm actually happy not only for the SWP to make some political capital out of being a small part of an important campaign which is actually WINNING some minor gains for working people, I'm glad when ANYBODY stands up and opposes the Coalition's "empty our pockets for the bankers" plans - even bloody, gang of four,  Shirley Williams ! (well OK not fascists - but anybody else).


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Yes, but only if it is sustainable and they can work with others, history shows otherwise....


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> PM, just what do you add to the debate around challenging welfare reform?, not much as far as i can see..


that's because that's not a debate which will get anyone anywhere, although it's the sort of shite angels on pinheads nonsense i expected to appeal to you. i'm not interested in chatting around the issue, in skirting it, but in actively opposing it. if you want to piss about with debate and spouting hot air, don't let me detain you.


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Yes, but only if it is sustainable and they can work with others, history shows otherwise....


 
Nope, at this stage, when we (the working class, the "Left" however you define it) are hopelessly understrength compared to the ruling class offensive, this is surely NOT the time to set conditions for acceptance of any group's work in opposing the cuts and the offensive generally. It's "all hands to the pumps" - every contribution to resistence is a plus.

We can't justify wasting time  arguing about what (political ?) "sustainability" and "the right line" means vis a vis every groups contribution to the overall effort, when we are collectively a truly PATHETIC social force compared to the needs of the times.  "Unity in action" EVEN if many groups simply refuse to meaningfully engage in joint action has surely to be the positive mindset for socialists seeking to oppose capitalism.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

I disagree, the SWP are there for the 'easy wins, the welfare challenge is going to be a long and sustained one: groups like Boycott Workfare and disabled people around the Spartacus Report are best placed for that, why do the SWP have to brand everything they do?, its bizarre, they emulate the corporations they supposedly despise..

I do think the key figures around RTW, who seem to be W/C, do care about the issues, but not the Party leaders..


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> let's let him speak for himself, eh


 
I'm sure he will. But as I happen to know he has been involved I thought I'd mention it - I find treelover's penchant for left bashing irritating at times, same as many others, but the fact is you're way off target on this one and I know that to be the case.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Nope, at this stage, when we (the working class, the "Left" however you define it) are hopelessly understrength compared to the ruling class offensive, this is surely NOT the time to set conditions for acceptance of any group's work in opposing the cuts and the offensive generally. It's "all hands to the pumps" - every contribution to resistence is a plus.
> 
> We can't justify wasting time arguing about what (political ?) "sustainability" and "the right line" means vis a vis every groups contribution to the overall effort, when we are collectively a truly PATHETIC social force compared to the needs of the times. "Unity in action" EVEN if many groups simply refuse to meaningfully engage in joint action has surely to be the positive mindset for socialists seeking to oppose capitalism.


What better time?

We all know what's what. Get it done now.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What better time?
> 
> We all know what's what. Get it done now.


 
Not sure what point you are making ? That now IS the time to engage in inter group argy bargy ? I must be misunderstanding you surely ?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

The point that saying lets all hold hands hides real manouveres, real differences, real opportunism.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The point that saying lets all hold hands hides real manouveres, real differences, real opportunism.


Or, there has never been a better time for a futile internal bun-fight.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Or, there has never been a better time for a futile internal bun-fight.


 
That would at least have the merit of keeping the dull old lefties and their failed tactics out of the way of the w/c at this crucial juncture.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Or, there has never been a better time for a futile internal bun-fight.


What internal bunfight? I get it, you can attack Len Mclusky on the grounds of it being needed internal dialogue, anyone else disagreeing is engaging in futile internal bun-fights. You're a fucking joke mate.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2012)

I didn't "attack Len McCluskey" - I expressed doubts (on an interweb discussion board) about whether his comments were tactically wise.  I have not gone deliberately trying to divide the movement I'm trying to build - quite the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I didn't "attack Len McCluskey" - I expressed doubts (on an interweb discussion board) about whether his comments were tactically wise. I have not gone deliberately trying to divide the movement I'm trying to build - quite the opposite.


Exactly my point - _everyone else is deliberately trying to divide the movement _with their disagreeing, your disagreement is holy and pure. And your shit doesn't stink either.


----------



## co-op (Mar 1, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Nope, at this stage, when we (the working class, the "Left" however you define it) are hopelessly understrength compared to the ruling class offensive, this is surely NOT the time to set conditions for acceptance of any group's work in opposing the cuts and the offensive generally. It's "all hands to the pumps" - every contribution to resistence is a plus.
> 
> We can't justify wasting time arguing about what (political ?) "sustainability" and "the right line" means vis a vis every groups contribution to the overall effort, when we are collectively a truly PATHETIC social force compared to the needs of the times. "Unity in action" EVEN if many groups simply refuse to meaningfully engage in joint action has surely to be the positive mindset for socialists seeking to oppose capitalism.


 
ayatollah, I'm not trying to get some cross-thread argument going here but you completely went off the deep end at me on the Greek thread (imo obviously) just days ago because I wanted to give some respect to the KKE poster who was giving some analysis of the Greek situation. I'm no Stalinist but that doesn't mean that I'm going to write off parties like the KKE certainly not in the forum of debate here on a board; what the real situation turns out to be on the ground in Greece is another matter.

But now you're calling for left unity regardless of ideology?

I'm a classic popular frontist at heart - but like many people on here I sort of draw the line at active involvement with the SWP because they are so ludicrously unable to hold to any deal they make and seem constantly intent on taking over every alliance they are in. It's just practical objections to them I've got, you can't work with them, it's like working with people who've got psychological/emotional issues. It always turns out to be a waste of time. Let them do their thing, if it helps great, if it doesn't then at least you haven't wasted your time & got thoroughly demoralised trying to build bridges with them.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly my point - _everyone else is deliberately trying to divide the movement _with their disagreeing, your disagreement is holy and pure. And your shit doesn't stink either.


Everyone has the right to raise questions and disagreements.  It's _how_ you do this that counts - whether it divides and fragments a movement or helps it to coalesce and broaden into the maximum effective unity.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Everyone has the right to raise questions and disagreements. It's _how_ you do this that counts - whether it divides and fragments a movement or helps it to coalesce and broaden into the maximum effective unity.


Everyone has the right but only your disagreements are constructive helpful and fruitful - everyone else is just deliberately trying to divide the movement by engaging in futile internal bun-fights. I can smell you from here.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2012)

> it seemed that those preaching unity and tolerance the loudest were those causing the most division and being the most intolerant of other peoples ideas.


 
Not aimed at anyone in particular, but this is generally the case.


----------



## co-op (Mar 1, 2012)

chilango said:


> Not aimed at anyone in particular, but this is generally the case.


 
Qui accuse, s'accuse.

As a general rule it holds up well in my experience.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2012)

co-op said:


> Qui accuse, s'accuse.


 
the one who said the rhyme did the crime...


----------



## co-op (Mar 1, 2012)

Smelt it, dealt it, innit?


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 1, 2012)

co-op said:


> ayatollah, I'm not trying to get some cross-thread argument going here but you completely went off the deep end at me on the Greek thread (imo obviously) just days ago because I wanted to give some respect to the KKE poster who was giving some analysis of the Greek situation. I'm no Stalinist but that doesn't mean that I'm going to write off parties like the KKE certainly not in the forum of debate here on a board; what the real situation turns out to be on the ground in Greece is another matter.
> 
> But now you're calling for left unity regardless of ideology?
> 
> I'm a classic popular frontist at heart - but like many people on here I sort of draw the line at active involvement with the SWP because they are so ludicrously unable to hold to any deal they make and seem constantly intent on taking over every alliance they are in. It's just practical objections to them I've got, you can't work with them, it's like working with people who've got psychological/emotional issues. It always turns out to be a waste of time. Let them do their thing, if it helps great, if it doesn't then at least you haven't wasted your time & got thoroughly demoralised trying to build bridges with them.


 
WE obviously have different levels of tolerance and analysis then co-op. I draw the line at accepting the complete fabrications about Stalinism put forward by unreconstructed stalinists, and reserve the right to respond vigorously to their lies in debate. I have no objection whatsoever to joint work with the KKE in Greece by the wider Left - BUT the KKE itself as "vanguard party" aint interested - cos its in some form of "third periodist" schtick - ie "every other group on the Left is objectively bourgeois or social fascist".     YOU, though, appear to give the lies and distortions of the arch stalinist papageorgiou on the Greece thread a lot of credence -- BUT you draw the line at working with (or at least not wasting your time slagging off)  the SWP in the UK  ! Well I've had VERY bad experiences with the SWP, and although a lot of their sectarian practices may well be loosely terned "stalinoid" in tone, they simply  aint "Stalinists" ideologically, and , quite important point, they haven't the history of mass murder of socialists and general class betrayal which makes me more than a tad wary of hardline  unapologetic stalinists like the KKE.


----------



## co-op (Mar 1, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> WE obviously have different levels of tolerance and analysis then co-op. I draw the line at accepting the complete fabrications about Stalinism put forward by unreconstructed stalinists, and reserve the right to respond vigorously to their lies in debate. I have no objection whatsoever to joint work with the KKE in Greece by the wider Left - BUT the KKE itself as "vanguard party" aint interested - cos its in some form of "third periodist" schtick - ie "every other group on the Left is objectively bourgeois or social fascist". YOU, though, appear to give the lies and distortions of the arch stalinist papageorgiou on the Greece thread a lot of credence -- BUT you draw the line at working with (or at least not wasting your time slagging off) the SWP in the UK ! Well I've had VERY bad experiences with the SWP, and although a lot of their sectarian practices may well be loosely terned "stalinoid" in tone, they simply aint "Stalinists" ideologically, and , quite important point, they haven't the history of mass murder of socialists and general class betrayal which makes me more than a tad wary of hardline unapologetic stalinists like the KKE.


 
OK fair enough. My objections to working with the SWP are practical not ideological though. And my readiness to listen to the KKE guy on the other thread was because he seemed to me _not_ to be an unreconstructed Stalinist although I agree, the whole monopoly vanguard thing is bullshit.


----------



## belboid (Mar 1, 2012)

I bumped into an old SWP mate on the bus to work this morning, and she was pissing herself at the coverage the party was getting over the workfare stuff. ‘How the fuck did we do that?’ she chortled, laughing at the absurdity of them having supposedly destroyed workfare.  No attempt to claim they had done so, far from it, she was as keen as John McDonnell was this morning to show the breadth of the campaign, that it isn’t just trots by any means. 
That right-wing newspapers want to split the campaign and create a red scare isn’t surprising.  That other people, like treelover and some other idiots further up the thread, want to repeat that drivel, to help divert the attention away from the campaign to the SWP is shameful. Those people are acting as the rights agents, letting their own pettiness blind them to the main issues.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 1, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Good interview with Bradley by Murdoch's dribbling, ex-bum boy - lick, lick. Reminds me of a postcard I had on my office wall for years.
> 
> "And on my right, a well dressed, mature gentleman from the Conservative Party. On my left, a bald headed, uncouth coot from the Trotsky Party."


 
Nice bit of homophobia there


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

chilango said:


> The BBC have joined in the bigging up of the SWP.
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> ...


 what do you think the agenda is?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

chilango said:


> Another BBC article...this time brandishing the spectre of "anarchists" according to IDS and "trotskyites" according Cameron.
> 
> desperate stuff.


 so are they bigging up anarchists? What is their agenda?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Why don't we JUST BE GLAD that all sorts of assorted Lefties (and their concerned, outraged mums and dads too) have put a spoke in the Coalition's "modern slavery for a modern age" scheme. It's VERY "Life of Brian" a lot of the stuff on this tread, fun, but really NOT good.
> 
> "People's Front for Judea..............
> 
> WANKERS !


ah, well said. Anarchist socialist I am glad to see anybody forking up the Tory plans. [Even if it is only a little spoke in their plans, so far.]

In fact
come on anarchists, pull your fingers out, and shows how it should be done.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 3, 2012)

The capitalist media just love  the word "anarchist", because its link to the word "anarchy" - which in everyday parlance is seen pretty much universally by Joe Public as "a bad thing" , removes the need for any supporting explanation by the self same media of its quivering , foam-flecked, hostility to anyone engaging in related activities. "Trotskyism" now... Phew... at least an hour long programme on the History Channel needed, to explain  to the typical punter what it is - never mind why it should be "CRUSHED INTO THE GROUND MERCILESSLY WITH UNWAVERING , UNLIMITED STATE POWER " in exactly the same way as "Anarchism" of course . No, easier to stick to words like "extremist", and "anarchist" . (which is hard luck on you Anarchist chappies ... thanks for taking all the flak !)


----------



## JHE (Mar 3, 2012)

The differences between these labels don't matter very much in the context. Their main purpose is not to suggest that the people referred to are dangerous or horrible, but simply that the campaigns are utterly unrepresentative of ordinary people and are run by people who have ulterior motives (of some obscure ideological sort) for their campaigning.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> The capitalist media just love the word "anarchist", because its link to the word "anarchy" - which in everyday parlance is seen pretty much universally by Joe Public as "a bad thing" ,


 you can't really blame Joe public, I mean, what is anarchism anyway?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

treelover said:


> because they knew exactly the time to jump onto the bandwagon, they know when an issue is reaching critical mass, they did nothing to create it though...
> 
> vampires...


 precisely. Work with the working class critical mass, not in some political ghetto on your own. That's the forking point.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Nobody I know IRL would have a scooby as to who the SWP are without explanation.


pretty much goes for the entire left.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 3, 2012)

still a passive aggressive sectarian cunt then.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

revol68 said:


> still a passive aggressive sectarian cunt then.


 to say the whole left including the SWP is pretty much a nonentity in most people's minds, is sectarian?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 3, 2012)

i'm talking about your approach to anarchism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

revol68 said:


> i'm talking about your approach to anarchism.


 my son asked me today, why do I hate anarchist? I answered, I don't. I agree with 99% of what they have to say. I just find it amusing how they get so irritated when people from the Labour Party through to the Socialist Workers Party consider them comrades.

I've said it many many times on here, but it is worth repeating. I wish anarchists, and all revolutionaries for that matter, every success. The more the merrier. The more the success, the greater. For in the end we all want the same things. It doesn't matter who achieves them, as long as somebody does.

You think anarchism is the way to achieve our aims, I think socialism is the way to achieve our aims. I'm happy for these different methodologies to coexist, work together, and compete in an evolutionary sense. To compete to get their ideas across to the working class, to promote the self activity of the working class in the interests of the working class. Whose ideas are right and wrong, can only be proven I believe, in a class struggle.

Fraternal greetings comrade.


----------



## JHE (Mar 3, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I've said it many many times on here, but it is worth repeating. I wish anarchists, and all revolutionaries for that matter, every success. The more the merrier. The more the success, the greater. For in the end we all want the same things. It doesn't matter who achieves them, as long as somebody does.


 
Ach... enough of your namby-pamby, wishy-washy, sub-Menshevik, let's-all-hold-hands-and-dance-into-the-future nonsense.

Anarchism is objectively counter-revolutionary. Counter-revolutionary activity is a capital offence.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

Never met and SWP, grade


JHE said:


> Ach... enough of your namby-pamby, wishy-washy, sub-Menshevik, let's-all-hold-hands-and-dance-into-the-future nonsense.
> 
> Anarchism is objectively counter-revolutionary. Counter-revolutionary activity is a capital offence.


 I've never met an SWP comrade who would contradict what I've just said .

 Now,Islamaphobes, that's another matter.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> my son asked me today, why do I hate anarchist? I answered, I don't. I agree with 99% of what they have to say. I just find it amusing how they get so irritated when people from the Labour Party through to the Socialist Workers Party consider them comrades.
> 
> I've said it many many times on here, but it is worth repeating. I wish anarchists, and all revolutionaries for that matter, every success. The more the merrier. The more the success, the greater. For in the end we all want the same things. It doesn't matter who achieves them, as long as somebody does.
> 
> ...


 
Thing is that I'm not sure you get why I'm annoyed.. have a look at this for instance (SP not SWP) http://www.jarrowandhebburngazette....-jobs-battle-for-the-youth-marchers-1-4307937



> Now YFJ is organising a Workfare Day of Action in London tomorrow, claiming the scheme is “slave labour”.


 
I can't find the RTW article following tesco but iirc. they said "Success for Right to Work campaign as Tesco pull out of workfare". 

Can you tell me what is wrong with those statements? Do you understand why such statements might lead people to be fucked off with SP/SWP?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Thing is that I'm not sure you get why I'm annoyed.. have a look at this for instance (SP not SWP) http://www.jarrowandhebburngazette....-jobs-battle-for-the-youth-marchers-1-4307937
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I can guess, but I would much rather you put it in your own words. I'm not trying to dodge the question, I will answer it. If I can.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I can guess, but I would much rather you put it in your own words. I'm not trying to dodge the question, I will answer it. If I can.


 
tbh, I was hoping to see if you could tell me what you thought pissed me off about those statements without me telling you directly.. but I'm quite happy to..

They are slightly different but basically the same. The YFJ/SP one, they didn't organise this day of action, it was called by Boycott Workfare, after Liverpool Uncut had called an action on that date (something which was clearly stated on the original callout). There is no mention of BW anywhere, nor any suggestion that YFJ might not be the only group who are doing stuff on this issue.

The RTW one, they (as a campaign) had done nothing on workfare before the tesco demo. But to read their statement, that hour demo in tesco was the only thing that had happened and the only thing that caused tesco to change their policy (to add salt to the wound, tesco hadn't withdrawn and this rtw statement led to a fair amount of fire-fighting to make it clear to people that there was still a problem)

The issue in both cases is the lack of recognition that other groups have been doing stuff. If I'd been writing the RTW statement, I would have said something like "success for workfare campaigners as Tesco shift their position" and then gone on to talk about the demo and what RTW have done in the context of what others have done. I would have gone as far as specifically mentioning boycott workfare for being on this issue and bringing the whole thing to light in the first place. If they'd said the demo was part of why Tesco changed their mind, rather than the whole reason, I'd be happy.
For YFJ one it would have been "YFJ are supporting the Boycott Workfare day of action"..

Personally, I think it's really important to recognise the efforts that other groups have made. RTW, YFJ have both failed to do this, and done so in such as way as to not just pointedly ignore those people/groups, but to actually claim the efforts and effects of those groups as their own work.

As I said early on in the thread, I'm happy that they are involved. Locally neither groups are as bad as they are nationally, and we all work together happily, and I'm confident that there will be a proper unified campaign here following the (long planned) meeting at the end of March.
I just think they could go about things in a better way than they have, and than they usually do.

Compare and contrast with Birmingham Against the Cuts (even the headline: "why we're supporting Boycott Workfare campaign in Birmingham"):
http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wor...ting-boycott-workfare-campaign-in-birmingham/


> Boycott Workfare are a campaign group who have been working to end these schemes. ... We have decided to support the campaign in Birmingham, and will be helping to organise a meeting in the city centre sometime in March, along with Birmingham Trades Council and Boycott Workfare.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 3, 2012)

JHE said:


> The differences between these labels don't matter very much in the context. Their main purpose is not to suggest that the people referred to are dangerous or horrible, but simply that the campaigns are utterly unrepresentative of ordinary people and are run by people who have ulterior motives (of some obscure ideological sort) for their campaigning.


 
Problem is they're right to an extent. I don't know what it's been like elsewhere, but round my way all the demos, all the actions, even (as far as I can tell) all the social media stuff and the like, has been done by activist types. There are a few involved who are on JSA and ESA but they're also far left politicos. So the campaign isn't even attracting the involvement of those who are most affected by the "reforms". We seem to have managed to sway public opinion to some extent - before the demos etc nearly everyone I spoke to from outside lefty activist circles supported workfare but now it's about 50/50. But not enough for people who aren't already activists to get involved.

Sure, the motivations aren't just ideological (in the narrow Marxist/Anarchist sense), most peoples' reason for involvement is that this is forced labour, which you don't need to be an anarchist or a Marxist to oppose, but it's still true (if my area is anything to go by) that most of the people involved in the campaigns would self-identify as far-left.

Which is why I'm so surprised it's had even the limited success we've seen so far.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 3, 2012)

Your annoyance is perfectly understandable Big Tom, but this has, I'm afraid, been the standard behaviour right across the Left for EVER. Probably better for ones blood pressure just to be glad that  some progress is being made on the broad campaign against Workfare, and carry on regardless mate.

Getting annoyed, upset, blood-boilingly ANGRY, about Left sectarianism and credit grabbing, is about as useful as chewing the carpet every time Gove puts his arrogant, mean, corrupt, bigotted, ignorant, ratlike,  smug, pig-eyed, hateful,  little poisonous gonk faced self on the TV........ ...........

MUCH better to chill out, like I do.........


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Problem is they're right to an extent. I don't know what it's been like elsewhere, but round my way all the demos, all the actions, even (as far as I can tell) all the social media stuff and the like, has been done by activist types. There are a few involved who are on JSA and ESA but they're also far left politicos. So the campaign isn't even attracting the involvement of those who are most affected by the "reforms". We seem to have managed to sway public opinion to some extent - before the demos etc nearly everyone I spoke to from outside lefty activist circles supported workfare but now it's about 50/50. But not enough for people who aren't already activists to get involved.
> 
> Sure, the motivations aren't just ideological (in the narrow Marxist/Anarchist sense), most peoples' reason for involvement is that this is forced labour, which you don't need to be an anarchist or a Marxist to oppose, but it's still true (if my area is anything to go by) that most of the people involved in the campaigns would self-identify as far-left.
> 
> Which is why I'm so surprised it's had even the limited success we've seen so far.


 
Yep, I think that's true for Birmingham as well.  I'm hoping that my time spent flyering at my local job centre for a meeting in that area will mean that claimants attend.  Certainly I've had plenty of people stopping to chat to me about workfare and their experiences whilst I've been at the job centre, and some have said they'd come to the meeting. I don't know whether they will.  
I wonder if there is an issue here, which that "give up activism" piece addressed, in that many people do not see themselves having a role in campaigns, that it's something done by activists and they are either not welcome or it's not something for them, or they are just happy to leave other people to do the campaigning stuff.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Your annoyance is perfectly understandable Big Tom, but this has, I'm afraid, been the standard behaviour right across the Left for EVER. Probably better for ones blood pressure just to be glad that some progress is being made on the broad campaign against Workfare, and carry on regardless mate.
> 
> Getting annoyed, upset, blood-boilingly ANGRY, about Left sectarianism and credit grabbing, is about as useful as chewing the carpet every time Gove puts his arrogant, mean, corrupt, bigotted, ignorant, ratlike, smug, pig-eyed, hateful, little poisonous gonk faced self on the TV........ ...........
> 
> MUCH better to chill out, like I do.........


 
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not bothered, I was a bit, but I got over that by getting swp activists to hand out bw leaflets  I don't think it's going to change, it's just something to be accepted and let wash over you afaic.
It saddens me though, because it doesn't have to be like that, and it shouldn't be like that. It confuses me that groups are not able to think about a fairly basic courtesy of the acknowledgment of other peoples efforts. And that has nothing to do with ideology.

e2a: I've had a look at some of my posts and I can see how they've come off in a way that might sound like I'm really pissed off.. I'm not, no point in being really pissed off, just get on with things.. and in general I'm a very easy-going chilled out person.. but I feel like RenegadeMP3 and others are missing why I have objections to the SWP/SP bandwagon jumping and I want to be clear about it.. because I think it could be easily solved (unlike the ideological differences)


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2012)

Tbf to the SWP, the latest paper (the missus gets it), acknowledges that the anti-workfare campaign is "broadbased".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I wonder if there is an issue here, which that "give up activism" piece addressed, in that many people do not see themselves having a role in campaigns, that it's something done by activists and they are either not welcome or it's not something for them, or they are just happy to leave other people to do the campaigning stuff.


 
I think this is a huge problem but i dont have any idea how to change it. How do you change it?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I think this is a huge problem but i dont have any idea how to change it. How do you change it?


I don't know - but perhaps it's a conversation for another thread, rather than a derail for this one? Have you read Give Up Activism? http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm the author presents the problem but has no solution


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

I'll have to read it in more detail but that's a very very good article. I'm not sure whether I agree with it all yet but it would be a very good thread to start. (if someone wants to)


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

maybe tomorrow


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

there was another thread i was going to start. so maybe that one can wait.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Tbf to the SWP, the latest paper (the missus gets it), acknowledges that the anti-workfare campaign is "broadbased".


 
That's big of them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

BigTom said:


> tbh, I was hoping to see if you could tell me what you thought pissed me off about those statements without me telling you directly.. but I'm quite happy to..
> 
> They are slightly different but basically the same. The YFJ/SP one, they didn't organise this day of action, it was called by Boycott Workfare, after Liverpool Uncut had called an action on that date (something which was clearly stated on the original callout). There is no mention of BW anywhere, nor any suggestion that YFJ might not be the only group who are doing stuff on this issue.
> 
> ...


Yes, I can see your point completely. Isn't really any excuse for it, that should be done, people should be given due respect for the work they have put in.
Got to say your attitude given this faux pas, is commendable.
Sorry I took so long to reply, I went to bed, and haven't had chance until now to go back to it today.

PS. Just have to inform you, I am in no way uptodate with all the political machinations. I shouldn't be in any way considered an expert, or in any way knowledgeable of how the SWP would respond about current events. Haven't been involved with, or had an interest in the SWP in over 10 years. The ONLY TIMES I discuss the SWP, is when I come on here. And that is only because to wind up those who constantly and intentionally misrepresent what SWP actually say.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

Nobody misrepresents what they say. We just don't take them at their word, that's all. You wouldn't take the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, even the Greens at face value so why on earth do you do so with the SWP?


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 4, 2012)

regardless of Urbans passion for secretarian bickering i think we must applaud the SWP in provoking the normally cool and calculated Cameron into a hysterical rant about those goddamn Trotskyites and thus showing his true colours


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I don't know - but perhaps it's a conversation for another thread, rather than a derail for this one? Have you read Give Up Activism? http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm the author presents the problem but has no solution


I think "no solution" is intentional.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I think "no solution" is intentional.


 
How do you mean?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody misrepresents what they say. We just don't take them at their word, that's all. You wouldn't take the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, even the Greens at face value so why on earth do you do so with the SWP?


 if people did that, I wouldn't have a problem. If people said ie "socialist workers say they are for the emancipation of the working class, by the working class, but I don't believe them because of XYZ." That's fine. But in reality people say things like "unlike the trots, who act as the vanguard for the revolution on behalf of the working classes".



At the end of the day, the SWP could be completely and utterly wrong. I don't have a problem with anyone saying that.  But to say that their motives are many different to other social revolutionaries, to say they are not motivated towards progressive politics and creating a classless society is rubbish.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> How do you mean?


 in that anarchists seem to want to ask the questions, and let people come to their own conclusions as to what the solutions are.

I could be wrong.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Can you tell me what is wrong with those statements? Do you understand why such statements might lead people to be fucked off with SP/SWP?


 
more so than the trivial annoyance at them claiming credit etc, their late involvement has had a far more problematic effect

since workfare blew up the tories have attempted to isolate the work experience scheme, even going as far as lying that workfare doesnt exist on the work programme etc, this meant that when they appeared to give concessions they could pretend to hand the trots a victory when in reality that concession is pretty worthless

so quick were the swp and sp to claim this victory, and so ignorant were they on welfare, something theyve never shown an interest in before, that the idea that workfare is over has been allowed to neuter the opposition to it

both the tories and trot left want this to go away now, barely anything has actually changed but tesco, grayling and the swp have all come out of it able to pursue exactly the agendas they wanted - none of those agendas included genuinely supporting claimants and scrapping workfare for good, all were based around pure self interest


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> if people did that, I wouldn't have a problem. If people said ie "socialist workers say they are for the emancipation of the working class, by the working class, but I don't believe them because of XYZ." That's fine. But in reality people say things like "unlike the trots, who act as the vanguard for the revolution on behalf of the working classes".
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, the SWP could be completely and utterly wrong. I don't have a problem with anyone saying that. But to say that their motives are many different to other social revolutionaries, to say they are not motivated towards progressive politics and creating a classless society is rubbish.


 
Ordinary members sure, I have my doubts about the leadership though. And are you not demanding that all comments relating to the SWP are prefaced by "socialist workers say they are for the emancipation of the working class by the working class but..." honestly? Get real man.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in that anarchists seem to want to ask the questions, and let people come to their own conclusions as to what the solutions are.
> 
> I could be wrong.


 
You're probably right. I don't see anything wrong with that though. One of the biggest problems with political discourse at the moment is that neoliberals gets to define not only the answers but also the questions. The more people asking awkward questions the better IMO.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're probably right. I don't see anything wrong with that though. One of the biggest problems with political discourse at the moment is that neoliberals gets to define not only the answers but also the questions. The more people asking awkward questions the better IMO.


 that you don't hear anything wrong with that, is part of the problem imo.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Ordinary members sure, I have my doubts about the leadership though. And are you not demanding that all comments relating to the SWP are prefaced by "socialist workers say they are for the emancipation of the working class by the working class but..." honestly? Get real man.


 and they say anarchists have no party line. 

come on then, name names. Who in the leadership, has different motives to the rank-and-file? And what are these different motives?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm not an anarchist you plum


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and they say anarchists have no party line.
> 
> come on then, name names. Who in the leadership, has different motives to the rank-and-file? And what are these different motives?


 
To be honest I don't even know who is in the leadership now. But from when I was in there I'd say that Martin Smith was only really ever bothered about ensuring he had the most power within the party, and Alex "working class aristo" Callinicos has only ever been bothered about looking cleverer than everyone else.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not an anarchist you plum


 I did go looking on your profile to try and ascertain your politics. Sorry about the insult.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Martin Smith was only really ever bothered about ensuring he had the most power within the party, and Alex "working class aristo" Callinicos has only ever been bothered about looking cleverer than everyone else.


 God! What a sad waste of two lives.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> more so than the trivial annoyance at them claiming credit etc, their late involvement has had a far more problematic effect
> 
> since workfare blew up the tories have attempted to isolate the work experience scheme, even going as far as lying that workfare doesnt exist on the work programme etc, this meant that when they appeared to give concessions they could pretend to hand the trots a victory when in reality that concession is pretty worthless
> 
> ...


 so the whole of the SWP, all rank-and-file membership do not genuinely support claimants and scrapping of workfare for good?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be honest I don't even know who is in the leadership now. But from when I was in there I'd say that Martin Smith was only really ever bothered about ensuring he had the most power within the party, and Alex "working class aristo" Callinicos has only ever been bothered about looking cleverer than everyone else.


 actually to go back to this. So you are saying for the past 40 years socialist worker modus operandi, sustained modus operandi, has been determined by a series of character defects in their leadership?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> more so than the trivial annoyance at them claiming credit etc, their late involvement has had a far more problematic effect
> 
> since workfare blew up the tories have attempted to isolate the work experience scheme, even going as far as lying that workfare doesnt exist on the work programme etc, this meant that when they appeared to give concessions they could pretend to hand the trots a victory when in reality that concession is pretty worthless
> 
> ...


 
Whilst I think this is true, the SWP were not the only ones who were getting things wrong - the mainstream media was just as bad at not knowing their stuff, and the tories were always pushing to try to get attention solely on the work experience scheme.
I think various articles in the mainstream press, including the Guardian and Indy that (at least) gave the impression that tesco had withdrawn completely, or that workfare was now voluntary, would have done more damage in this regard.
The SWP/RTW stuff has a relatively small and well connected readership, and locally at least, they were quick to realise that they'd jumped the gun and were still calling actions and correcting their mistakes in online articles.  I'd be willing to bet that nearly everyone who heard from RTW that the workfare campaign had been successful, also heard that there was still more to do.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> God! What a sad waste of two lives.


 
They seemed to get a fair bit of satisfaction from it to be honest.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> actually to go back to this. So you are saying for the past 40 years socialist worker modus operandi, sustained modus operandi, has been determined by a series of character defects in their leadership?


 
No.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Whilst I think this is true, the SWP were not the only ones who were getting things wrong - the mainstream media was just as bad at not knowing their stuff, and the tories were always pushing to try to get attention solely on the work experience scheme.
> I think various articles in the mainstream press, including the Guardian and Indy that (at least) gave the impression that tesco had withdrawn completely, or that workfare was now voluntary, would have done more damage in this regard.
> The SWP/RTW stuff has a relatively small and well connected readership, and locally at least, they were quick to realise that they'd jumped the gun and were still calling actions and correcting their mistakes in online articles. I'd be willing to bet that nearly everyone who heard from RTW that the workfare campaign had been successful, also heard that there was still more to do.


 
I'd add to that the fact that the local picture in some areas can look very different from the national one. In my area nobody, from RTW/SWP or YFJ/SP thought that the "concession" had any real significance beyond making the government look weak and a little incompetent and activists from both groups have been heavily involved in welfare rights since at least the new labour days.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that you don't hear anything wrong with that, is part of the problem imo.


 
Care to expand on that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No.


 well you have only pointed to people with character flaws so far. So what else have you got?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

What precisely do you want? Lack of internal democracy allowing them to do this kind of thing. Little communication between branches (below the level of branch secretary) making it almost impossible for people to discuss concerns with people outside their own branch. The leaders would have had those character flaws regardless, but this is what allowed them to project those flaws onto the party as a whole and made it virtually impossible for the membership to reign them in.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so the whole of the SWP, all rank-and-file membership do not genuinely support claimants and scrapping of workfare for good?


 
thats not what i said is it


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Whilst I think this is true, the SWP were not the only ones who were getting things wrong - the mainstream media was just as bad at not knowing their stuff, and the tories were always pushing to try to get attention solely on the work experience scheme.


 
yes, but the mainstream media were by and large talking to the swp/sp, thats often who they were getting their information from


----------



## BigTom (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> yes, but the mainstream media were by and large talking to the swp/sp, thats often who they were getting their information from


 
Ah, ok.. I'd didn't realise/think about that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> thats not what i said is it


 
Give it 6 months and it'll very likely be what rmp3 will *tell* people you've said, though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> yes, but the mainstream media were by and large talking to the swp/sp, thats often who they were getting their information from


 
How do we get around that though? Journalists, like the rest of us, can be a bit lazy. They know that both groups will be happy to give the "protestors side" on any issue like that and so that's two contacts they can use for pretty much anything. Takes a lot more work for them to find out who's been involved in grass roots campaigns and get in contact with them. I'm in the SP and I was interviewed by local radio for this, and while I'm not going to deny that we were grateful for the media coverage the fact is that they came to us, not vice versa. I'll add that I went out of my way to stress that there were various groups and individuals involved - this wasn't just "our" campaign and I do think it would be better if this was the case at the national level too.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> What precisely do you want? Lack of internal democracy allowing them to do this kind of thing. Little communication between branches (below the level of branch secretary) making it almost impossible for people to discuss concerns with people outside their own branch. The leaders would have had those character flaws regardless, but this is what allowed them to project those flaws onto the party as a whole and made it virtually impossible for the membership to reign them in.


 we had about 20 branches. Everybody knew people, interacted with people from other branches. This happened on a regular district meetings, activities, and just organisationally.

There were weekly sub district meetings, between the district organiser and people elected from the branches. These people elected from the branches would change on a regular basis. Again there is national meetings, where people are elected again on the same basis.

You just don't get the level of organisation SWP is able to throw at events, without interaction and communication.

The problem with your theory about the 'flaws' of leaders being reigned, is that those 'flaws' were your perception , not ours.

 I believe that the rank and file were just as responsible for the actions as the SWP as the leadership. In full concurrence with the leadership.

On the topic of the thread, one of the earlier posters pointed to the socialist party being guilty of "this kind of thing". And as several other posters have pointed out, this kind of thing always goes on between organisations. It isn't something to get too worked up about, it is the rough-and-tumble of politics. The 'actavist syndrme' does create these kind of fuck ups.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, glad you are happy in your new political party. Keep up the good work comrade.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> thats not what i said is it


Good! Glad my QUESTION narrowed it down.  So who didn't  genuinely support claimants and scrapping workfare for good?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Give it 6 months and it'll very likely be what rmp3 will *tell* people you've said, though.


Obsessed!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The problem with your theory about the 'flaws' of leaders being reigned, is that those 'flaws' were your perception , not ours.


do you know what 'reigned' means? simple question, y/n


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> How do we get around that though? Journalists, like the rest of us, can be a bit lazy. They know that both groups will be happy to give the "protestors side" on any issue like that and so that's two contacts they can use for pretty much anything. Takes a lot more work for them to find out who's been involved in grass roots campaigns and get in contact with them. I'm in the SP and I was interviewed by local radio for this, and while I'm not going to deny that we were grateful for the media coverage the fact is that they came to us, not vice versa. I'll add that I went out of my way to stress that there were various groups and individuals involved - this wasn't just "our" campaign and I do think it would be better if this was the case at the national level too.


People make mistakes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> People make mistakes.


yes. but you never seem to make anything other than a mistake. prove you can do something right, if you can.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> we had about 20 branches. Everybody knew people, interacted with people from other branches. This happened on a regular district meetings, activities, and just organisationally.
> 
> There were weekly sub district meetings, between the district organiser and people elected from the branches. These people elected from the branches would change on a regular basis. Again there is national meetings, where people are elected again on the same basis.
> 
> ...


 
From my experience the long term party hacks had plenty of contact with people from other branches but the rest of us mere plebs didn't. Why do you think, when splits happen, it's almost always regional? (In that the people who split tend to come from the same area(s). If you had the kind of democratic culture you're claiming then you'd expect it to be more even across the country.

And of course those flaws were my perception not yours - that's why you're still in the SWP and I'm not.

No party is perfect, in my view parties are a necessary evil. But I think having regular regional meetings and socials, that everyone can attend, helps generate the kind of democratic culture that can act as a check on the power of the leadership. As does having serious debate about political events and how to react to them, rather than (effectively) electing a CC to do all that for you.

And what "kind of thing" are we talking about now? This is a cross thread conversation so it's getting a bit confusing to be honest. Do the SP sometimes fuck up? Sometimes take sole credit for things others made a vital contribution to? Yes. Almost certainly. I'm not sure what you think this proves though. I think the fact that people who aren't members of either party tend to be a lot more comfortable working with the SP than the SWP (something else that has been mentioned by others on these threads) speaks volumes.

I believe I'm a lot more effective in the party I belong to than I would be outside. If that perception ever changed I would leave. I don't have the kind of emotional attachment you appear to have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> People make mistakes.


do you know what 'reigned' means? simple question, y/n


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Good! Glad my QUESTION narrowed it down. So who didn't genuinely support claimants and scrapping workfare for good?


 
it doesnt matter what people think as individuals, trivial things like politics are secondary to strategic considerations, buy the paper, build the party - thats why you get in such an ideological mess over and over again


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> People make mistakes.


do you know what 'reigned' means? simple question, y/n


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> How do we get around that though?


 
easy, you either give them the contact details of one of the claimant groups whove been working on these issues for a long time, or failing that you take some time to learn exactly what it is youre protesting about


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> easy, you either give them the contact details of one of the claimant groups whove been working on these issues for a long time, or failing that you take some time to learn exactly what it is youre protesting about


 
And if it's a local protest and those groups don't exist in your area, and you've been working on these issues for over 10 years, volunteering for an unemployed workers centre for much of that time, (ie. you do understand exactly what you're protesting about) what should you do then?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2012)

well in that case thats okay, have a medal from stalin


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 4, 2012)

Err.. thanks. I think 

Better than spouting ignorant bollocks and making false assumptions about people anyway.


----------



## chilango (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in that anarchists seem to want to ask the questions, and let people come to their own conclusions as to what the solutions are.
> 
> I could be wrong.



Damn fine idea!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in that anarchists seem to want to ask the questions, and let people come to their own conclusions as to what the solutions are.
> 
> I could be wrong.


are you ever anything else?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2012)

There was a very strong conclusion in the article that stopping the sort of activity that leads to producing specialists in activity is knocked on the head.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 6, 2012)

chilango said:


> Damn fine idea!


Why?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> From my experience the long term party hacks had plenty of contact with people from other branches didn't. Why do you think, when splits happen, it's almost always regional? (In that the people who split tend to come from the same area(s). If you had the kind of democratic culture you're claiming then you'd expect it to be more even across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I just think it proves, more democratic structures or not, your parties fallible like the SWP is.


I don't know where people get this impression from, "an emotional attachment to the SWP". I never discuss the SWP in more than passing comments about my 'previous life', except on here. And the only reason I do it on here, is to see how many pages I can get out of the anarchists, just by stating my opinion formulated from my experience.  I honestly don't recognise the U75 SWP. I do remain committed to a Marxist/Leninists/Trotskyist analysis, and I am sure I would be quite happy in the SP. Quite like WP too. My attachment is purely intellectual, as my friends and family would tell you, I have little time for emotion [something which may seem odd to say, but which is a product of my history and upbringing.]
As far as the SWP - SP are concerned, I know little about the SP. Had several conversations on here about the SP's interpretation of events in the Socialist Alliance. I did get one SP member to acknowledge the possibility of my perspective on the Socialist Alliance, but not in general about the SWP. His argument which had some resonance with me, was about the SWP being more inclined towards popular fronts, than united fronts. An interesting charge.
The thing that puts me off SP and WP with a couple of articles I read which we're pretty much what you were doing, and several people in this thread have done, which is going on about personalities, egos, etc. It's just not an analysis that attracts me, sorry. It reminds me of Trotsky in the history of the Russian revolution, where he talks about the Czar, and whether he was stupid or not, and he concluded that many of the Czars were stupid, it is just that his stupidity was exposed by social forces.
Had my first conversation yesterday in ages about politics. Forgotten how much fun it used to be. Really quite refreshing to have someone worth listening to, worth speaking to, and who didn't need to fallout because you disagreed.

But at the end of the day, I've no interest in winding you up comrade. If you want to have a serious conversation, feel free, start a thread, whatever. I'm just happy that you feel more effective in a party than outside, for I to believe that is true. I honestly don't care which revolutionary group is successful, in fact I just wish I believed any of them could be. A belief that has been, sadly, lost.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 6, 2012)

I can't be bothered to respond properly, not in the mood, but wanted to point this out:



ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't know where people get this impression from, "an emotional attachment to the SWP". I never discuss the SWP in more than passing comments about my 'previous life', except on here.


 
But when you're on here it's _all _you talk about - you might start a thread about anarchism or something but you only do it to argue either than anarchists and the SWP are the same, or that the SWP are better than anarchists or something. It's always the SWP. Most people manage not to talk about their organisations unless it's relevant to the topic at hand or there's something big going on. You claim to not even be in the SWP any more yet can't shut up about them.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> And the only reason I do it on here, is to see how many pages I can get out of the anarchists, just by stating my opinion formulated from my experience.


 
So you admit to being a troll then?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2012)

Allied with


> But at the end of the day, I've no interest in winding you up comrade


 
Can't even maintain a coherent position through one post.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> are you ever anything else?


ahhh, my dear anarchist freind, how could I ever be right, Im not anarchist? :*


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I can't be bothered to respond properly, not in the mood, but wanted to point this out:


 no problem mate. Not important.


> But when you're on here it's all you talk about - you might start a thread about anarchism or something but you only do it to argue either than anarchists and the SWP are the same, or that the SWP are better than anarchists or something. It's always the SWP. Most people manage not to talk about their organisations unless it's relevant to the topic at hand or there's something big going on. You claim to not even be in the SWP any more yet can't shut up about them.


 partially, in some examples, I see it the other way round. The last thread, the few paragraph I quoted were completely illogical to me. Fully accept this could be my fault, my political blinkers, my stupidity whatever. But it took me 10 pages just to get a simple admission out of VP on that topic. Seems very hard to get answers off them as "they only want to ask questions, and let people come to their own conclusions". AND it was THEY who constantly wanted to drag the topic towards the SWP, the Vanguard etc. About which I complained several times. Why do they do this, because they don't want to give answers etc.
However I will admit, I do tend to home in on SWP topics. Mostly historical, as I have no interest, any longer, in current affairs. Don't listen to the news. Don't read newspapers. Have no connection with political life. Sorry it's completely difficult for me to relate to, talk about topics ie current affairs I have no contact with. [Choose to do this, because once politics has been a massive part of your life, it is hard to do any other than make a clean break when one HAS TO.]
Lastly, there is this reason;


> So you admit to being a troll then?


 I did try for about three or four years to be open and honest, and have a serious discussion. No matter how antagonistic rude and ignorant the responses were [normal on 99% of current affairs forums], I would always be over the top polite, and end most posts with fraternal greetings comrade, ResistanceMP3. Big mistake. especially Butchers just trolled me. Haven't really had a serious conversation in here since then, EXCEPT there is an element of seriousness, in that you can troll the anarchists just by giving an honest opinion, which isn't theirs. But you cannot expect to convince them of anything.
In my opinion Athos is one of the more reasonable ones. And yet, look at his attitude to Tony Benn for example. Nobody dislikes Tony Benn more than myself, he irritates the shit out of me. But you have to relate to why so many nonpolitical's admire him. In my opinion, you shouldn't just describe him as part of the problem, you have to capture the contradiction in his politics. For anarchists, any political who is NOT an anarchist, is part of the problem. And this wouldn't be too bad, if they were to actually br 'honest' about their attacks. Look at their description of Vanguardism. Do you seriously know anybody who subscribes to such a elitist Vanguardism.
You see, as I have said before, it doesn't irritate me that they attack Tony Benn, socialist worker, socialist party, but they should attack them for what they really say and believe, instead of being complete fantasists. However, having said that, they are so consistent in these fantasies, I think they actually believe them. As a root cause I fraternally I think they are just misunderstanding the language.


> anarchists and the SWP are the same


 that is the problem with the revolutionary left in my opinion. Why shouldn't I go on, and on, and on about how we are the same? I prefer to emphasise what unites revolutionaries, rather than what divides us. I agree with 99% of what the anarchists have to say. Even where we disagree, Vanguardism, I don't think they truly understand how bottom up, nonelitist we Vanguardist's perceive the idea to be. I would love to be able to make them understand, but it isn't really possible is?
In the end, I make no apologies for wanting to emphasise how much we have in common, because to the rest of the real world, there is little difference. [ I am aware of the differences . But they are more about tactics , than intentions. ]T

PS. To be honest, I had already decided a couple of nights ago to stop trolling them. It is a sad activity I only usually do when I am completely bored, and had a few. LOL.

ETA. I say anarchists, BUT that is a most gross injustice. many anarchists and are far more reasonable than they are on U75. and even some of the ones on U75 can be too.


----------



## chilango (Mar 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> no problem mate. Not important.
> partially, in some examples, I see it the other way round. The last thread, the few paragraph I quoted were completely illogical to me. Fully accept this could be my fault, my political blinkers, my stupidity whatever. But it took me 10 pages just to get a simple admission out of VP on that topic. Seems very hard to get answers off them as "they only want to ask questions, and let people come to their own conclusions". AND it was THEY who constantly wanted to drag the topic towards the SWP, the Vanguard etc. About which I complained several times. Why do they do this, because they don't want to give answers etc.
> However I will admit, I do tend to home in on SWP topics. Mostly historical, as I have no interest, any longer, in current affairs. Don't listen to the news. Don't read newspapers. Have no connection with political life. Sorry it's completely difficult for me to relate to, talk about topics ie current affairs I have no contact with. [Choose to do this, because once politics has been a massive part of your life, it is hard to do any other than make a clean break when one HAS TO.]
> Lastly, there is this reason;
> ...


 
RMP3, what are you on about?

The discussions have been pretty measured and reasonable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2012)

chilango said:


> RMP3, what are you on about?
> 
> The discussions have been pretty measured and reasonable.


 
Perhaps your idea of "reasonable and measured" is at variance with what rmp3 sees as "reasonable and measured"?


----------



## chilango (Mar 7, 2012)

My idea of the meanings of most things seem to be at variance with RMP3


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 7, 2012)

From DSM - IV and yes I'm very much taking the 'passive aggressive' piss:

A pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:​

passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks​
complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others​
is sullen and argumentative​
unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority​
expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate​
voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune​
alternates between hostile defiance and contrition​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2012)

DSM is a joke...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 14, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> my sentiments entirely! May you be stalked as much as me now!!


 Trev, lets carry on, they don't like it up 'em.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Note: success = getting mentioned in the daily mail.


 No, it was because they had a way into the political dynamic in real time resonating nationally (the key point was that it was clear the capitalists were reacting in the media to a positive working class political dynamic), and not after the fact or only on U75, which the ultra left specialise in round here.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> DSM is a joke...


 
Yes but not a very funny one and it's about to be become even less so with the introduction of DSM5 in 2013...hypersexual disorder anybody?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2012)

Michael Bradley of Right To Work/SWP on BBC News Channel, substantial interview, they did nothing on benefits, unemployment, for many years, then they jump on the bandwagon, they ape the worst apects of the system the claim to oppose...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yes but not a very funny one and it's about to be become even less so with the introduction of DSM5 in 2013...hypersexual disorder anybody?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
what the fuck?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what the fuck?


 
Medicalising 'difficult' behaviour...it's all the rage. There are obvious up sides for professionals, 'sufferers' and society; what's not to like?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> Michael Bradley of Right To Work/SWP on BBC News Channel, substantial interview, they did nothing on benefits, unemployment, for many years, then they jump on the bandwagon, they ape the worst apects of the system the claim to oppose...


 why?


----------



## JHE (Mar 14, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> why?


 
Habit, I expect.



Anyway, surely there is a lesson here for campaigners who don't like the media turning to the SWP for interviewees.

Why do the mainstream media get an SWPer?  Because they want someone to interview and it's easy to phone or email the relevant SWP-run campaign and, when they do, the SWPers get back to them and agree to supply a person to interview.  It's dead easy:  you just go to the website and look up the contact details.  The media may also be getting press releases from the SWP with contact details.

If non-SWP campaigners want to talk to the media, they should make themselves easy to contact and they should make sure journalists and producers of news and current affairs programmes receive press releases about the campaigns and with contact names, phone numbers and email addresses.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 14, 2012)

my goodness thank you, if only you'd told us all that earlier


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> Habit, I expect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was asking " Why? > "_they did nothing on benefits, unemployment, for many years, then they jump on the bandwagon, they ape the worst apects of the system the claim to oppose... " _ mate."

However, on your point, yes. Yes they are organised in that way. However, they are more organised than many other groups on the left period. Just generally more organised. With some this is A political difference. The SWP make the point that the ruling class are organised in their class war against the working class, and that working class should be equally organised. In my opinion, this isn't aping the worst aspects of the system, but living in the reality.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This whole workfare furore has been brought about largely by keyboard warriors. No matter what the papers say I don't think a handful of small demos outside poundland are what have kicked off all this fuss. UkUncut have been doing simillar demos outside shops up and down the country for ages and nobody has paid them much attention. No, it's the twitteratti (has anyone thought of that one yet or did i just invent it?) and all the people sharing information and relentlessly harassing Tesco et al via their online presence that has done the damage this time.
> 
> The reason so many of the papers are so apoplectic with rage over the whole thing is that for once it's not been them setting the agenda. That's why you get all the ad hominem nonsense about the ultra-mega-turbo-super-left and their evil schemes to bring down the government by, err, telling people what the government has actually been doing.


 
Frank, you are close to getting towards the discussion I was hoping to have on this thread (and I haven't read most of it). That is, exactly why were business reacting in this way? Of course, the ultra left have no interest in progressing debates

You have partially the right answer I think, but why this campaign scored heavily and quickly was the synergistic qualities of the campaigning that suddenly confronted business. They spend millions on image and like to have a nice clientele, when image is damaged by the protests (direct action/newsworthyness), and their indicators on the web start telling them that a campaign is doing well and their clientele are getting disgruntled you have a combination that forced them to act. Government, conservative and Conservative as it is tried telling them 'this is the policy that is needed' but was forced to negotiate too. All very interesting for those authentically concerned with the real movements of class society.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 17, 2012)

Random said:


> Seeing a political event as an opportunity to attack some people off the internet is pretty much the definition of a keyboard warrior. Commenting on this makes me even worse, of course.


 
The point was that the critique was valid because the polemic talked about action, and in contrast with those who do no action then it was a logical political comment to make.

I stay loyal to the real movement of class society and the interests of the working class, and that means praising the SWP when warranted. I am loyal to no organisation (though some do have more loyalties a bit more than others), which is positively refreshing because its gives you perspectives about what needs to be done rather than organisational blinkers which are reactionary  most of the time (defend my organisation whatever its failings and shortcomings). 

The focus is ONLY on what working class protesting in effective in whatever area, and of course political attempts to link it all together. All the factions are not what the working class needs.
Its a bit like my veiw of religion, they can't all be right and therefore they must all be wrong, but I also build on this by gathering information from all sources and try to piece together a better outlook out of the fragmentation. This to me seems very politically sensible


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> Habit, I expect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What interviews? There were none. All there was was tory MPs and writers  dredging their memory banks for the enemy when they were students. They, and the SWP, were playing the same game.


----------



## JHE (Mar 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What interviews? There were none.


 
Rubbish. Of course, there've been interviews.  The news media were (briefly) interested in these protests.  What are they going to do?  Interview people!  Where are they going to find the people to invite?  As I suggested earlier.

There was the interview with Michael Bradley that Treelover talked about.  There was also another with the same SWPer on the Andrew Neil programme.  I think that was discussed earlier on this thread.  Another one I saw was not with an SWPer, but someone from the SP.  (The same point applies, though:  the SP would approach news media in a useful way.)  Those are just three that I know of.  There have probably been others I'm not aware of.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

The interview that took place after the events - none before. Who else woud they talk to than the people that did the thing?. The points were more about the way that the SWP's and the Mail's agenda coincided -_ it's the lefties/we're the lefties_ and where this left the actual campaigns. And you dressing this uo as just them being organised is missing the point by 27 yards.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 17, 2012)

butchersapron said: ↑
Note: success = getting mentioned in the daily mail.


The Black Hand said:


> No, it was because they had a way into the political dynamic in real time resonating nationally (the key point was that it was clear the capitalists were reacting in the media to a positive working class political dynamic), and not after the fact or only on U75, which the ultra left specialise in round here.


 
Missed this did you Butch, those ultra left blinkers are still on i see....​


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

doing what the papers say = success


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> butchersapron said: ↑
> Note: success = getting mentioned in the daily mail.​​​Missed this did you Butch, those ultra left blinkers are still on i see....​


You mean they were better at  being shit. How they were is no problem to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

Here i jump.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

You going to phil's thing mw?


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 17, 2012)

IF there ever was a successful socialist revolution in the UK , nobody on the Left would have any time to enjoy it ... we'd all be too busy arguing for the next 20 years about who was actually present or came up with the idea first  to storm Buckingham Palace.

Gawds sake it was just a quite successful wee campaign against Workfare , yeh, by A LOT, of groups - and as it panned out the SP and SWP got a bit of credit /notoriety - SO HOW MUCH does everybody HATE them....... much more than the ROMANS !


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> IF there ever was a successful socialist revolution in the UK , nobody on the Left would have any time to enjoy it ... we'd all be too busy arguing for the next 20 years about who was actually present or came up with the idea first to storm Buckingham Palace.


 
Or busy fighting off the forces of reaction. 



> Gawds sake it was just a quite successful wee campaign against Workfare , yeh, by A LOT, of groups - and as it panned out the SP and SWP got a bit of credit /notoriety - SO HOW MUCH does everybody HATE them....... much more than the ROMANS !


 
I suspect that what's annoying people isn't the SWP "getting a bit of credit", it's that they did nothing to disoblige the media of the notion that the whole thing was their idea, which is rich considering how little their front had to do with the early organisation etc.
Plus, I also suspect that people may be slightly worried about the SWP attempting a StWC-type manouvre whereby they try and "take over" the anti-workfare movement which, given how that's turned out for previous issue-based movements where they've used that tactic, is understandable.

BTW, I hate the Romans far more than I hate anyone else. What did they ever do for us, eh?


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 17, 2012)

Yeeeeeh, But me and my group (well just me at the moment ) *REALLY *hate the Romans.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or busy fighting off the forces of reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


for what it's worth, as an X member, I do think that the stop the War movement, turned out more popular from than united front the I would have liked. That's a criticism. [though the SWP in my area did try to make it a far more bottom-up movement.

However, I am interested to learn what better alternative was displaced by the SWP? Was there a bottom-up alternative on offer? An alternative enough organised to have actually had an effect upon the body politic?


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You mean they were better at being shit. How they were is no problem to you.


Your problem is that they exist and do something, which shows your and your ilks lack of activity up. You cannot slag something off if you're not involved, as you're not part of the events/political dynamic, and because 'after the event analysis' always knows best, but like the Trots that 'all leads to the party', for you it leads to the ultra left.

Both equally wrong and mistaken, and what is more it is not Marxism. Here the SWP got closest to Marxism and praxis and that's what you really object to


----------



## TremulousTetra (Apr 28, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> Your problem is that they exist and do something, which shows your and your ilks lack of activity up. You cannot slag something off if you're not involved, as you're not part of the events/political dynamic, and because 'after the event analysis' always knows best, but like the Trots that 'all leads to the party', for you it leads to the ultra left.
> 
> Both equally wrong and mistaken, and what is more it is not Marxism. Here the SWP got closest to Marxism and praxis and that's what you really object to


was that directed at me The Black Hand


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 30, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> was that directed at me The Black Hand


 No it was directed at Butch.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 30, 2012)

The Black Hand said:


> No it was directed at Butch.


 
Really? Now there's a turn up for the books.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------

