# Trotfest 2012



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

I only went to see Leila Khaled speak...via weblink. I didn't pay to get in.

But fuck me what power hungry bunch of oddballs. The guy chairing boasted how long he's been in the SWP and then kept the webcam pointing at himself and not the crowd. What a prick.

I only went for a couple of hours and a number of things made me quite angry.

Who went and what fucked you off?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 9, 2012)

Well I've never been involved in any political party, and my only glimpse into that world is via people's derision of it on U75. It makes me not want to bother, to be honest. Which is a shame because I'm probably not the only person to be put off, and if anything is needed now it is for people to politically active.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 9, 2012)

Fuck that.

What sort of organisation charges £65 for a ticket anyway?


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 9, 2012)

Don't be a wanker - it costs loads to put on something like that. And unemployed low waged people are subsidised.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 9, 2012)

the pricing would be completely reasonable imo, if the event even barely lived up to the standards it claimed to. very few decent quality debates mixed in amongst a whole heap of shit... usually a couple of celebrity names such as Leila Khaled thrown into the mix make it generically worthwhile (though rarely challenging).

plus you have to put up with the incessant badgering from the recruitment team


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> I only went to see Leila Khaled speak...via weblink. I didn't pay to get in.
> 
> But fuck me what power hungry bunch of oddballs. The guy chairing boasted how long he's been in the SWP and then kept the webcam pointing at himself and not the crowd. What a prick.
> 
> ...


 
I am an auntycryst, I am an annakissed!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Don't be a wanker - it costs loads to put on something like that. And unemployed low waged people are subsidised.


 
It was £20 quid for a day ticket and £15 for concessions. What unemployed person can afford £15 to be indoctrinated and patronised?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

It had a cultish atmosphere and an obvious class division within the party. A lot of upper middle class hubris wafting around pretending to be learned with the working class membership doing the donkey work.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2012)

Remember the episode of Father Ted when they go to see 'the passion of st tibulus'  in order to be deeply offended by it and winge a lot? Careful now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2012)

Does the SWP really have much of a working class membership? I thought it was mainly students.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Don't be a wanker - it costs loads to put on something like that. And unemployed low waged people are subsidised.


 
Why not squat a building and throw open the doors and only ask for donations?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Remember the episode of Father Ted when they go to see 'the passion of st tibulus' in order to be deeply offended by it and winge a lot? Careful now.


 
That would be an ecumenical matter!

Or as Leila Khaled said to a discrepancy between her and Chomsky 'that's dialectics!'


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 9, 2012)

I sympathise a bit  with your bad reaction to the pervading atmosphere of "partyism" and "pushing the line" and the constant attention from party recruiters at an event like this ,DrRingDing, but really, what did you expect ? If I was ever for some reason  tempted to attend a Scientologist Convention, I would only have myself to blame if I was pestered to purchase T shirts with T Ron Hubbard , or Tom Cruise, printed on them , and found the speech patterns of the attenders a bit jargonised !  "Marxism 2012" was the event.. the organisation putting it on, the neo Trot SWP.... bit daft to complain that it didn't have a broader non Marxist, more "Libertarian", flavour to it surely ?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Fuck that.
> 
> What sort of organisation charges £65 for a ticket anyway?


 
Central Trains.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> bit daft to complain that it didn't have a broader non Marxist, more "Libertarian", flavour to it surely ?


 
I didn't say that, did I?


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 9, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Fuck that.
> 
> What sort of organisation charges £65 for a ticket anyway?


 
One that likes money and wants to have more of it.

The Conservative Party conference is only 80 quid. And you'd get to meet Justine Greening in person instead of Leila Khaled FaceTiming in from an Amman coffee shop.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2012)

Do you go to it?


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 9, 2012)

treelover said:


> Do you go to it?


 
No, I always assumed, like any other party conference, it was full of bores and twats. I've been to quite a few Conservative Abroad things in Brussels when I lived there but that was more of a business networking thing.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 9, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> It was £20 quid for a day ticket and £15 for concessions. What unemployed person can afford £15 to be indoctrinated and patronised?


Don't be a knob. I've only been once, but I certainly wasn't indoctrinated or patronised.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2012)

DownwardDog said:


> No, I always assumed, like any other party conference, *it was full of bores and twats*. I've been to quite a few Conservative Abroad things in Brussels when I lived there but that was *more of a business networking thing.*


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Don't be a knob. I've only been once, but I certainly wasn't indoctrinated or patronised.


 
Maybe, you got lucky.

Maybe, you weren't paying attention.


----------



## grogwilton (Jul 9, 2012)

If you buy in advance (which most do, through SWP activists at other events) it's £55 for 5 days. For the amount of meetings, films, gigs you get for that, plus a free creche and crashmat accomodation, that's not a lot of money. 

For those who say it's an SWP recruitment fest, and debates tend to ivolve a lot of SWP speakers, well, yes. That's kind of the point. Did you think they set it up for your own personal entertainment? If you don't want the SWP to try and recruit you, or put forward their opinion, organise your own political festival with Leila Khaled, Tommy Mckearney, Ronnie Kasrils, Robert H King at it.  

I'd also imagine the Conservative Party had a bit more money to throw at subsidised conference tickets then the SWP.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2012)

Trotfest sounds like what a lot of festivals become when you eat a dodgy burger.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 9, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Maybe, you got lucky.
> 
> Maybe, you weren't paying attention.


Maybe you're just a sectarian arsehole.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 9, 2012)

What's this about David Harvey having a go at the SWP who didn't react too well?


----------



## JHE (Jul 9, 2012)

8ball said:


> Trotfest sounds like what a lot of festivals become when you eat a dodgy burger.


 
There was a good turnout for the discussion of Trotsky's theory of permanent ablutions.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> What's this about David Harvey having a go at the SWP who didn't react too well?


dunno but sounds 

Callinicos balance out Harvey as to whether I wanted to go.  Same with Negri.  So didn't bother.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2012)

According to twitter reports they booed Harvey when he criticised them.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

why was he critical (ok shooting fish in a barrell but...)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2012)

It's not entirely clear from twitter. Someone claims it was about them using campaigns for branding and recruitment purposes, but twitter is not a place for detail.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Maybe you're just a sectarian arsehole.


 
Maybe, your missus has given you the horn over democratic centralism.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 9, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Maybe, your missus has given you the horn over democratic centralism.


 
There are plenty of things to criticise the SWP for and my missus would be the first to say that.  So make a proper argument, not this teenage shite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 9, 2012)

I suspect the camera pointing at the pannel thing was about not showing the faces of people in the audience who might otherwise be victimised. Marxism is IMO the only decent thing the SWP do these days, always decent speakers.

As others have said, what the fuck did the op expect? I now suspect that our wesident wadical is the love child of Mary Whitehouse and a member of the informal annakissed federation.


----------



## mutley (Jul 9, 2012)

It was a damn good event, 3999 booked in advance plus 1000 on the door. I haven't been able to go for a couple of years cos of family but it was actually a bit better, for one thing cos they've almost completely abolished the speakers slip system. (this means that the classic of trot entertainment - the contribution from the Spartacist League - has made a comeback).
Obviously we want to recruit at it, and obviously there are ways that it could be better, and probably quite reasonable debates about which speakers ought to be at such an event. However as I noticed in another thread that some people on urban seem to think that the profile Owen Jones is giving to left wing arguemnts is in some sense a problem I'm not really expecting a reasonable debate here.

Incidently, whoever it was though the audience should be filmed - well in my experience a fair few ppl in such audiences don't actually want to be filmed, and if the chair filmed himself he fucked up.

ps i wasn't there for the David Harvey debate but they will put out a cd which anyone who goes to bookmarks could pick up for 3 quid


----------



## grogwilton (Jul 9, 2012)

I went Saturday and Sunday.

Best meeting was probably the booklaunch of 'London Recruits' which had a load of former YCLers and John Rose there as well as Ronnie Kasrils from the ANC. Was a combination of guys reminiscing about the fun and games they go up to in South Africa and also a genuine example of the left rising above sectarian BS in a genuine and victorious cause- Urban take note. Bought the book and had Ronnie sign it.

Tom Mckearney was also good, saw Owen Jones who spoke well and covered a lot at a fairly basic level which was fair enough as a lot of the audience were understandably young. Nothing really newwas said but what the hell.

Graham Turner provided some detailed analysis of the current world economy and prospects for growth.

Wanted to go to the Higgs boson meeting but it was full, as were a few others.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2012)

I have it on good authority there's lots of new people at this years Marxism. The "indoctrination" has had some success then.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 10, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I have it on good authority there's lots of new people at this years Marxism. The "indoctrination" has had some success then.


 
This post was brought to you from 1982, 1983...

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This post was brought to you from 1982, 1983...
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
This comment was brought to me by someone who wasn't even around in 1982, 1983...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2012)

audiotech said:


> This comment was brought to me by someone who wasn't even around in 1982, 1983...


 
But probably was in 2011, 2010... And if that person wasn't, there was someone else to make similar comments.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

Marxism in whatever year it was, that I forget now, was virtually empty, dull and lasted a whole week, that seemed to drag on tediously forever.


----------



## JHE (Jul 10, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Marxism in whatever year it was, that I forget now, was virtually empty, dull and lasted a whole week, that seemed to drag on tediously forever.


 
It was a week long for most of its history, wasn't it?  It was certainly a week long throughout the 1980s.  I'm pretty sure it was only a few years ago that the number of days was reduced.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

Summat like that.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

It was frequently rammed during the week long versions.  Extra space having to be booked.  Some cracking discussions and debates (amidst a few droff ones as well)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

_


audiotech said:



			Summat like that.
		
Click to expand...

Something_ like that.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

Has anyone else ever had the idea that rather than each of the small little trot sects in this country each claiming to be the proletarian leadership, they'd be much more effective if they ditched that aspect of their organization and concentrated on a specific task they were good at?

Think about it. If the SWP just ditched the idea of it being a political party and instead just concentrated on what it does best, ie the Marxism festival and bookmarks, and concentrated their efforts on doing that as well as they could, they'd be doing the movement a service. Like the SP, which seems to do it's best work as being a left-wing pressure group and lobbying organisation withing the trade union movement, could just do that, without being wedded to a committee of the revolutionary vanguard. Or if the CPB, for instance, give up on trying to recreate 1917 and just became the Morning Star group, as the Morning Star is pretty much all the CPB has going for it that I can tell.

I have a swappie friend, a nice person, txting me in a near-hysterical state because apparently this year's Marxism's been the best attended and subscribed in a generation, and all the Swappies would appear to be getting their hopes up once again. I of course counselled them that this year's Marxism is the most attended in a generation _every year_ but no, they take it seriously. Tbh I have a feeling they're telling the truth, which must come as an awful disappointment to a lot of people.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

Anyone got a link to the David Harvey speech yet? I can't wait.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

He was always a sectarian bearded cunt anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

I bet all he said was this not a time of party building or something. That's as critical as he gets.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2012)

I've actually heard him say moderately nice things about both the SWP and the Socialist Party. Also some moderately critical things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've actually heard him say moderately nice things about both the SWP and the Socialist Party. Also some moderately critical things.


He doesn't know you exist nigel.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't know you exist nigel.


 
Who me? I'd be very surprised if he knew I existed. Maybe if he lurks here and reads the squabbling in the cycling threads.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He was always a sectarian bearded cunt anyway.


Yes you are right in respect of the fact that he has a beard. I know of no sect to which he subscribes unless 'Marxist geographer' counts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

The worst sect of all.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

S.E.K 



The electrician and his comment about 'reminiscing in pubs' has a ring to it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 10, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I suspect the camera pointing at the pannel thing was about not showing the faces of people in the audience who might otherwise be victimised.


 
With respect that's total bollocks. 

The only people seeing the crowd on the webcam would be the crowd and the speakers, you numpty.

Or was The MOSSAD hacked into SOAS's PC to sneak a peak at Leila Khaled and us reprobates?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 10, 2012)

Has anyone got the talk on organising of precarious workers?

Apparently that was trashed by the party faithful.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Has anyone got the talk on organising of precarious workers?
> 
> Apparently that was trashed by the party faithful.


 
I very much doubt if the SWP argued that "precarious" workers couldn't and shouldn't be organised.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Has anyone got the talk on organising of precarious workers?
> 
> Apparently that was trashed by the party faithful.


Going by who? You sound like an unreliable twat.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2012)

audiotech said:


> S.E.K
> 
> 
> 
> The electrician and his comment about 'reminiscing in pubs' has a ring to it.



martin smith copying my glasses. again.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

Fred Perry polo shirt? Ranting style?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Fred Perry polo shirt? Ranting style?


he's always had them. the glasses are new though.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 10, 2012)

I cringe thinking of Marxism events.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 10, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Marxism in whatever year it was, that I forget now, was virtually empty, dull and lasted a whole week, that seemed to drag on tediously forever.


 
To be fair I have over the years enjoyed quite a lot of the talks even when I left the party. Wouldn't dream of going for a week but used to go weekends and a couple of evening after work. You can have political differences but still appreciate discussion.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Going by who? You sound like an unreliable twat.


 

You sound like you're up your own arse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> You sound like you're up your own arse.


So, going by who and what? What trashing took place?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, going by who and what? What trashing took place?


 
None of your fucking business 'who'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> None of your fucking business 'who'.


It is exactly my business who is suggesting this trashing has took place. 

Look mum, *i'm an anarchist*


----------



## mk12 (Jul 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair I have over the years enjoyed quite a lot of the talks even when I left the party. Wouldn't dream of going for a week but used to go weekends and a couple of evening after work. You can have political differences but still appreciate discussion.


 
Michael Albert v Alex Callinicos was an enjoyable discussion, although I probably can't say I agree with either of their viewpoints. Albert's critique of Leninism was pretty effective.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 10, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I very much doubt if the SWP argued that "precarious" workers couldn't and shouldn't be organised.


 
Where did I say that? Or are you just making shit up as you go along?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Where did I say that? Or are you just making shit up as you go along?


Do you want to calm down dingding?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair I have over the years enjoyed quite a lot of the talks even when I left the party. Wouldn't dream of going for a week but used to go weekends and a couple of evening after work. You can have political differences but still appreciate discussion.


 
I agree. It was just the one year and admittedly it doesn't add any fond memory's to the event travelling around with someone who was too tight to share a mini-cab when we happened to get off at the wrong tube station, late at night, trying to get to our place of rest in that London. "Don't wanna go down in the tube station at midnight whoa oh" I hummed.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Has anyone else ever had the idea that rather than each of the small little trot sects in this country each claiming to be the proletarian leadership, they'd be much more effective if they ditched that aspect of their organization and concentrated on a specific task they were good at?
> 
> Think about it. If the SWP just ditched the idea of it being a political party and instead just concentrated on what it does best, ie the Marxism festival and bookmarks, and concentrated their efforts on doing that as well as they could, they'd be doing the movement a service. Like the SP, which seems to do it's best work as being a left-wing pressure group and lobbying organisation withing the trade union movement, could just do that, without being wedded to a committee of the revolutionary vanguard. Or if the CPB, for instance, give up on trying to recreate 1917 and just became the Morning Star group, as the Morning Star is pretty much all the CPB has going for it that I can tell.
> 
> I have a swappie friend, a nice person, txting me in a near-hysterical state because apparently this year's Marxism's been the best attended and subscribed in a generation, and all the Swappies would appear to be getting their hopes up once again. I of course counselled them that this year's Marxism is the most attended in a generation _every year_ but no, they take it seriously. Tbh I have a feeling they're telling the truth, which must come as an awful disappointment to a lot of people.


every year has been the biggest and best ever, which is odd when one considers that the number of days and meetings and venues are far reduced from what they were in the 1980s/90s, and the number of inner london comrades able to put up out of towners is also much reduced.
 the swp, like the sp, awl and the rest cannot give up the triumphalism because the fantasy that they are THE proletarian party is essential to their ideology, to give it up is to deny themselves their raison d'etre.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I have it on good authority there's lots of new people at this years Marxism. The "indoctrination" has had some success then.


 
ready to be burnt out or spat out in a few months time, and so the dreary cycle goes on,

oh, and a new influx of young women for the older leaders to take a chance on...


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> every year has been the biggest and best ever, which is odd when one considers that the number of days and meetings and venues are far reduced from what they were in the 1980s/90s, and the number of inner london comrades able to put up out of towners is also much reduced.
> the swp, like the sp, awl and the rest cannot give up the triumphalism because the fantasy that they are THE proletarian party is essential to their ideology, to give it up is to deny themselves their raison d'etre.


 
I suspect it was much bigger this time, climate camp is no more, occupy is defunct, the libertarian left (who imo,could have grown exponentially over the last ten years) has not managed to engage all the young students who I'm sure are still smarting, etc, there is now no other real pole of attraction for youth looking for answers, etc, sad really.....


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> ready to be burnt out or spat out in a few months time, and so the dreary cycle goes on,
> 
> oh, and a new influx of young women for the older leaders to take a chance on...


 
Judith Orr, editor of _Socialist Worker_, might have something to say about that. Any chance of you appearing in the letters page with your morality tale?

The SWP is a voluntary organisation. You join. You leave. A number stay for decades. A few get expelled over the years, who perhaps think themselves lucky, as they won't be asked to join again ever.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> ready to be burnt out or spat out in a few months time, and so the dreary cycle goes on,
> 
> oh, and a new influx of young women for the older leaders to take a chance on...


 
its hardly a grooming situation


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> oh, and a new influx of young women for the older leaders to take a chance on...


just because thats what you'd do, it doesnt mean anyone else would.  Prick.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

wouldn't be the first time it happened in a trot sect though...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> wouldn't be the first time it happened in a trot sect though...


 
Never really heard of it happening in the Swaps or Spew though, it happens more in the Labour party imo


----------



## bignose1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Never really heard of it happening in the Swaps or Spew though, it happens more in the Labour party imo


Come on how many times does some decent fanny join/turn up and theres a fucking stampede... lefties arnt immune from being cock led..


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

> Never really heard of it happening in the Swaps or Spew though, it happens more in the Labour party imo


Not that I''m aware of


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Come on how many times does some decent fanny join/turn up and theres a fucking stampede... lefties arnt immune from being cock led..


 
I'm well aware of that - what I'm saying is that in my experience there is not some sinister grooming team at the top of the party unlike in some groups.


----------



## bignose1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm well aware of that - what I'm saying is that in my experience there is not some sinister grooming team at the top of the party unlike in some groups.


 Fair enough SL...you mean like the WRP circa 60's/70's


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 11, 2012)

"Trotfest" would actually be a loads better name for it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 11, 2012)

My parents tell me that in 1970s people joined SWP type organisations at universities in order to get laid. How times have changed...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Fair enough SL...you mean like the WRP circa 60's/70's


 
Yes.

And just to be clear I'm not a supporter or sympathiser of the SWP in anyway.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 11, 2012)

the question of grooming of attractive young men/ women in the SWP has been raised before, Anna Chen famously accused the party of operating a 'fuck circuit' in which the senior members of the party preyed on attractive young members rewarding them with full timer posts in return for sexual favours:



> I am astonished that Harman can write:
> “One very disturbing feature of this meeting was the attitude of Galloway’s supporters towards women members of Respect. …The point, however, is that the left have always sought to resist such behaviour. …”
> This is simply untrue.
> I spoke to a number of the CC and senior members about the sexism and discrimination I’d experienced for several years in “The Party”, and wrote to several, but none of them would take it further. One senior member laughed when I said I wanted to take it to the Control Commission and he, not unsympathetically, explained to me the practical purpose of that body. That is: to instill discipline for the lower orders, not to see justice done.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)




----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

An SWP "fuck circuit"?

Take that Darwin!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 11, 2012)

I can exclusively reveal despite having been in, or in the student group of, no less than four Trotskist or semi-Trotskyist groups, no leading figure has even once groomed me for sexual purposes.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

I spent a year knocking around them (never joined!) as a 17 year old and I have to say I never got groomed either.

Just another fucking knock to the self esteem I don't need.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 11, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I spent a year knocking around them (never joined!) as a 17 year old and I have to say I never got groomed either.
> 
> Just another fucking knock to the self esteem I don't need.


 
You were around the Swmmers or around our lot?


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You were around the Swmmers or around our lot?


 
The swimmers, you're lot might be incestuous debauched degenerates that would get up on the crack of a plate but I never got the impression there was any structure to the shagging.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 11, 2012)

Presumably Organise's opportunities for degeneracy were somewhat limited from the point of view of a straight dude. Same goes for the WSM.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 11, 2012)

memory fades, was it the RCP that required your partner must also be a member?..or the RIL perhaps (probably thinking of some strange sexual liasons within that latter grouping...their only memorable contribution to AFA that I can remember)

last Marxism I went to was on a Saturday, the same day as England lost on penalties to Italy World Cup 1990, with the Trots cheering on Italy antagonising the normals in the bar.
I was there for a few hours, plonked a few Red Actions on the floor whilst enjoying a few beers, to be fair, quite a few approached to buy them.  Just goes to show, you don't need to shout slogans in order to sell!

Was eventually asked to leave..gave the appropriate response and they called OB!!   Plod turns up alone, he was ok actually, saying 'look mate, I know he's a wanker, you know he's a wanker, but it's their do' etc..He allowed me to finish the pint and a half I had already bought (there was a very long single file queue for the bar...'was this what a future socialist night out would look like?' I wondered...anarchy, at the bar at least, was my favoured option)


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Presumably Organise's opportunities for degeneracy were somewhat limited from the point of view of a straight dude.


 
I don't go out with politico's.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> the question of grooming of attractive young men/ women in the SWP has been raised before, Anna Chen famously accused the party of operating a 'fuck circuit' in which the senior members of the party preyed on attractive young members rewarding them with full timer posts in return for sexual favours:


 

anyone gonna take the barbs back, oh, i didn't mean full on grooming, I meant they were opportunists who could and have took advantage particularly of the more vunerable recruits, seen it happen..


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> the question of grooming of attractive young men/ women in the SWP has been raised before, Anna Chen famously accused the party of operating a 'fuck circuit' in which the senior members of the party preyed on attractive young members rewarding them with full timer posts in return for sexual favours:


 
To be honest, the idea that the cental committee and top trots of the SWP are all shagging each other in exchange for jobs doesn't surprise me in the least. Mind you, all the regular SWP groups I've encountered there's never been any trace of owt like that. Same with SP.

I reckon this sort of incestuous culture is big in the Labour party though, I saw evidence of it the brief time I was in the party, and considering I was only marginally involved for just a few years I've seen too many instances of sexual harassment and snide, insidious bullying for such a short time. I remember some dirty old bastard running a stall for the co-operative party at some conference or other trying to convince me to join by telling me how it was the path to getting laid, and then luridly gesturing like Sid James at two young-ish women stood nearby, minding their own business, who looked really embarassed by him drawing attention to them that way.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2012)

' spoke to a number of the CC and senior members about the sexism and discrimination I’d experienced for several years in “The Party”, and wrote to several, but none of them would take it further. One senior member laughed when I said I wanted to take it to the Control Commission and he, not unsympathetically, explained to me the practical purpose of that body. That is: to instill discipline for the lower orders, not to see justice done'

Do they really have a 'control commission?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 11, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> To be honest, the idea that the cental committee and top trots of the SWP are all shagging each other in exchange for jobs doesn't surprise me in the least.


it does me. have you seen 'em? who's gonna shag any of them for a twelve grand a year job plus dole money?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> Do they really have a 'control commission?


 
Yes. A stupid name for what is in theory (rarely in practice) a good idea.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

discokermit said:


> it does me. have you seen 'em? who's gonna shag any of them for a twelve grand a year job plus dole money?


 
at this moment and time, me probably.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2012)

revol68 said:


> The swimmers, you're lot might be incestuous debauched degenerates that would get up on the crack of a plate but I never got the impression there was any structure to the shagging.


 
You heard about Millie Summer Camp in England then?!


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> the question of grooming of attractive young men/ women in the SWP has been raised before, Anna Chen famously accused the party of operating a 'fuck circuit' in which the senior members of the party preyed on attractive young members rewarding them with full timer posts in return for sexual favours:


Anna Chen was often full of shit tho.  Assaulted by a balloon


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2012)

discokermit said:


> it does me. have you seen 'em? who's gonna shag any of them for a twelve grand a year job plus dole money?


 
I could live like a king on that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 11, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I could live like a king on that.


 
Do you live in Burkina Faso or something?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Do you live in Burkina Faso or something?


 
even worse, huddersfield.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 11, 2012)

Silly nonsense about the sex life of the swp apart (and it is funny to any of us who ever spent siginificant time in the party) I have to say Marxism seemed a little downbeat to me this year. I first went to Marxism in 86 and last went in 98 so I was very curious to see how tings had changed. Apart from getting lost at first cause I thought it was still in ULU I have to say there wasn't the same buzz around the crowd I saw on the Saturday morning as I remembered from old. Obviously everyone I knew looked older but it was more than that. There weren't the same groups of people stood or sat around earnestly debating stuff and it's not as if with all those Egyptian revolutionaries around (the main reason I went this year was to hear Hossam speak) there wasn't loads to talk about. A bit disappointing really although I'm not sure if that says more about the state of the swp or the british left generally :-(


----------



## grogwilton (Jul 11, 2012)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Silly nonsense about the sex life of the swp apart (and it is funny to any of us who ever spent siginificant time in the party) I have to say Marxism seemed a little downbeat to me this year. I first went to Marxism in 86 and last went in 98 so I was very curious to see how tings had changed. Apart from getting lost at first cause I thought it was still in ULU I have to say there wasn't the same buzz around the crowd I saw on the Saturday morning as I remembered from old. Obviously everyone I knew looked older but it was more than that. There weren't the same groups of people stood or sat around earnestly debating stuff and it's not as if with all those Egyptian revolutionaries around (the main reason I went this year was to hear Hossam speak) there wasn't loads to talk about. A bit disappointing really although I'm not sure if that says more about the state of the swp or the british left generally :-(


 
I know what you mean, meetings seemed fuller this year, but the mood was different to last year where the quad was rammed until late into the night with small groups debating and drinking. I concluded this was because it kept pissing it down every five minutes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2012)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Silly nonsense about the sex life of the swp apart (and it is funny to any of us who ever spent siginificant time in the party) I have to say Marxism seemed a little downbeat to me this year. I first went to Marxism in 86 and last went in 98 so I was very curious to see how tings had changed. Apart from getting lost at first cause I thought it was still in ULU I have to say there wasn't the same buzz around the crowd I saw on the Saturday morning as I remembered from old. Obviously everyone I knew looked older but it was more than that. There weren't the same groups of people stood or sat around earnestly debating stuff and it's not as if with all those Egyptian revolutionaries around (the main reason I went this year was to hear Hossam speak) there wasn't loads to talk about. A bit disappointing really although I'm not sure if that says more about the state of the swp or the british left generally :-(


 
I saw you at Marxism in 02, or 03 actually but maybe you just came to the bar that year


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

It was Bolshieboy in the Billiards room with a balloon?  did I get it?!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 11, 2012)

miktheword said:


> last Marxism I went to was on a Saturday, the same day as England lost on penalties to Italy World Cup 1990, with the Trots cheering on Italy antagonising the normals in the bar.


 
Cheering on Italy? How many beers had you had? 

Just a thought but it could have been the SWP's Scottish and Welsh contingent watching England go out to the Germans.

I remember in '98 when England went out to Argentina on penalties that a few of the Scottish contingent - which consisted of me and this other bloke -  in the warehouse where I worked enjoying the result as it was played out over the tannoy.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> ' spoke to a number of the CC and senior members about the sexism and discrimination I’d experienced for several years in “The Party”, and wrote to several, but none of them would take it further. One senior member laughed when I said I wanted to take it to the Control Commission and he, not unsympathetically, explained to me the practical purpose of that body. That is: to instill discipline for the lower orders, not to see justice done'
> 
> Do they really have a 'control commission?


 
Oh YES they do have a "Control Commission" . Some of the old lags from Red Action might remember appearing before this august body circa late 1981 as part of the "anti Squaddist Purge " procedure. As I recall (from heresay.. I was in clink so couldn't attend ) some cheeky Squaddists asked to be able to present a verbal defence  to the dire  accusations against them... to which Lindsey German (of course Purged herself only recently... ) ranted, "We wouldn't allow the National Front the right to speak !"  Presumeably on the , unspoken, basis that Squaddists and fascists were one and the same.

Yep, they might have been miniscule grouplets but the internal Party actions of all too many hacks in groups like the SWP and SLL, did make one glad they never got their hands on any levers of state power !


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Oh YES they do have a "Control Commission" . Some of the old lags from Red Action might remember appearing before this august body circa late 1981 as part of the "anti Squaddist Purge " procedure. As I recall (from heresay.. I was in clink so couldn't attend ) some cheeky Squaddists asked to be able to present a verbal defence  to the dire  accusations against them... to which Lindsey German (of course Purged herself only recently... ) ranted, "We wouldn't allow the National Front the right to speak !"  Presumeably on the , unspoken, basis that Squaddists and fascists were one and the same.
> 
> Yep, they might have been miniscule grouplets but the internal Party actions of all too many hacks in groups like the SWP and SLL, did make one glad they never got their hands on any levers of state power !



nothing more terrifying than the idea of a state ran by teachers.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 11, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My parents tell me that in 1970s people joined SWP type organisations at universities in order to get laid. How times have changed...


 
If they did, they must have been VERY, very, very, disappointed.  They would have been MUCH better advised to join the Conservative Soc if that was their only motivation - sadly. When harsh people said the Trots were a bunch of wankers, it wasn't an insult.. just a statement of fact...

Mind you I actually did meet my lovely wife via the SWP, so at the end of the day all those endless windswept paper sales, and dull meetings were worth it.........aaaahhhh.

I went on a Right to Work March in the late 70's , and I can report that John Deeson was working 8 hour shifts with willing young female Party members in the back of his van  overnight --- so the "glamour of High Power" obviously did work for the lucky sods on the Central Committee... as ever !  For the rest of us -- endless rainsoaked marching and kipping down in windy tents with no soft underlays... bastards !


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2012)

Was it Blackpool ayatollah? I made into the tory conference that year. The actual conference had wound down by then, but me and a mate got on the platform, looking around for any dirt we could find (none), and then a pint in the bar, with some tory twits peering at us suspiciously.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 11, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> Cheering on Italy? How many beers had you had?
> 
> Just a thought but it could have been the SWP's Scottish and Welsh contingent watching England go out to the Germans.
> 
> I remember in '98 when England went out to Argentina on penalties that a few of the Scottish contingent - which consisted of me and this other bloke - in the warehouse where I worked enjoying the result as it was played out over the tannoy.


 




somehow, I remember the match more than any of the debates...it was the third /fourth place play off that England lost to Italy....The SWP weren't alone among the Left in that though; I remember being holed up around Euston on an AFA do and abuse being hurled at a group of Rugby League fans down for the final - their shirts having too much red, white and blue on - obvious signs of being fash.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 11, 2012)

miktheword said:


> somehow, I remember the match more than any of the debates...it was the third /fourth place play off that England lost to Italy....The SWP weren't alone among the Left in that though; I remember being holed up around Euston on an AFA do and abuse being hurled at a group of Rugby League fans down for the final - their shirts having too much red, white and blue on - obvious signs of being fash.


 
apologies, it was the penalties bit that made me think that you'd mixed up Germany with Italy. 2-1 to Italy, wasn't it? I seem to remember David Platt scoring the opening goal with a good header. I could never work out if he was overrated or not.

eta: just checked wiki. Platt scored the equalising goal.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I can exclusively reveal despite having been in, or in the student group of, no less than four Trotskist or semi-Trotskyist groups, no leading figure has even once groomed me for sexual purposes.


 
I'm, quite honestly, gutted I wasn't able to have a dabble with the leading ladies in the SWP. Some people prefer Monroe, Hepburn, Welch? Give me German, Choonara or...Orr any day.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I'm, quite honestly, gutted I wasn't able to have a dabble with the leading ladies in the SWP...


 
"leading ladies" and "have a dabble" - ffs, is it any wonder you were expelled.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 11, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> apologies, it was the penalties bit that made me think that you'd mixed up Germany with Italy. 2-1 to Italy, wasn't it? I seem to remember David Platt scoring the opening goal with a good header. I could never work out if he was overrated or not.
> 
> eta: just checked wiki. Platt scored the equalising goal.


 

I confuse myself as I also thought England lost to Italy on pens - it was their speciality after all. 
Platt? yep, overrated, bit like Lampard, habit of being in the right place at the right time on the pitch and off in terms of club, Russian oligarchs etc. seems to be one of the blue eyed boys at the FA for coaching jobs as well

should clarify in my above post, the abuse at the rugby fans wasn't from AFA but from some  lefties along for the day who weren't used to seeing the working class in real life


----------



## mk12 (Jul 11, 2012)

audiotech said:


> "leading ladies" and "have a dabble" - ffs, is it any wonder you were expelled.


 
Expelled for the writing of ironic, sexist comments.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Expelled for the writing of ironic, sexist comments.


 
what's ironic about the sexism, huh, huh, huh...


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I'm, quite honestly, gutted I wasn't able to have a dabble with the leading ladies in the SWP. Some people prefer Monroe, Hepburn, Welch? Give me German, Choonara or...Orr any day.


 
Esme Choonara? She's only nice to fascists.... Letting them into the SWP and become SWP conference delegates....


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 11, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I'm, quite honestly, gutted I wasn't able to have a dabble with the leading ladies in the SWP. Some people prefer Monroe, Hepburn, Welch? Give me German, Choonara or...Orr any day.


 
As an outsider, years ago I tried my luck and attempted to chat up a lass involved with some RESPECT and/or SWP thingy in Preston, who was wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Angela Davis printed on it, by initially talking about... Angela Davis.  She had never heard of her.  A fresher very recently recruited to go on a march or two, I think.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2012)

No England in '78, who failed to qualify two years in succession. Held in Argentina, just two years after the military had taken power in a coup. Scotland lost out on goal difference in the first round. Argentina beat the Netherlands 3-1 after extra time.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I can exclusively reveal despite having been in, or in the student group of, no less than four Trotskist or semi-Trotskyist groups, no leading figure has even once groomed me for sexual purposes.


 
Good to see that even Trots and semi trots wouldn't sink to such a level of sexual depravity.Have you tried the Labour Party?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I can exclusively reveal despite having been in, or in the student group of, no less than four Trotskist or semi-Trotskyist groups,


 
Which ones?


----------



## mk12 (Jul 11, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> As an outsider, years ago I tried my luck and attempted to chat up a lass involved with some RESPECT and/or SWP thingy in Preston, who was wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Angela Davis printed on it, by initially talking about... Angela Davis. She had never heard of her. A fresher very recently recruited to go on a march or two, I think.


 
A march? Don't you mean a walk? Followed by the formation of a seven person line spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T with their arms, legs and torsos?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 11, 2012)

Don't forget the thumbs up.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 11, 2012)

Cooché!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 11, 2012)

Che pendant.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

revol68 said:


> nothing more terrifying than the idea of a state ran by teachers.


_run_


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> _run_


 
not if the idea was in the past tense.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

But a state currently run by teachers would surely be more terrifying? Can't have it both ways


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> But a state currently run by teachers would surely be more terrifying? Can't have it both ways


 
nope the fear is the worst bit.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

in which case it's futute tense.  So 'run' again


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> in which case it's futute tense. So 'run' again


 
shit I mean, memories are the most terrifying.

you fucker!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 12, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Which ones?


 
Irish SWSS, Irish Socialist Party, SSP, English and Welsh SP. Actually, it's technically five as I was also in the International Socialists (as CWI Scotland / SPS was then called).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> As an outsider, years ago I tried my luck and attempted to chat up a lass involved with some RESPECT and/or SWP thingy in Preston, who was wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Angela Davis printed on it, by initially talking about... Angela Davis. She had never heard of her. A fresher very recently recruited to go on a march or two, I think.


 
Cooch?


----------



## love detective (Jul 12, 2012)

mk12 said:


> A march? Don't you mean a walk? Followed by the formation of a seven person line spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T with their arms, legs and torsos?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 12, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Cooch?


 
Nyet.  She was black.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 12, 2012)

Matb's finest hour-a letter of complaint from the mum of a member of the combat party of the proletarian vanguard


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

mk12 said:


> A march? Don't you mean a walk? Followed by the formation of a seven person line spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T with their arms, legs and torsos?


That's what I was meant to be?  Looks like a day out of the osteoperosis society.


----------



## SLK (Jul 12, 2012)

audiotech said:


> S.E.K
> 
> 
> 
> The electrician and his comment about 'reminiscing in pubs' has a ring to it.




They had Galloway booked? So they've made up?


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 12, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Was it Blackpool ayatollah? I made into the tory conference that year. The actual conference had wound down by then, but me and a mate got on the platform, looking around for any dirt we could find (none), and then a pint in the bar, with some tory twits peering at us suspiciously.


 
Yes it was indeedy  Blackpool.  One more demoralising feature of this Right to work March was that when we camped one night on the outskirts of some god-forsaken new town or other en route the , (very young) , youth of the place decended on us like vultures in the middle of the night and robbed us blind !  Leaving us wailing pathetically as they ran off gleefully with our  kit .."But we're on your side comrades... solidarity.... come on give us back our clobber................... BASTARDS !"


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 12, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Matb's finest hour-a letter of complaint from the mum of a member of the combat party of the proletarian vanguard


 
tbf she was about 16 at the time and genuinely upset that tonnes of lecherous shit was being spread about her for the amusement of a little clique on U75.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> tbf she was about 16 at the time and genuinely upset that tonnes of lecherous shit was being spread about her for the amusement of a little clique on U75.


There was no lecherous shit posted around whatsoever - you've been put right on this before. There was laughter at her cliched teenage trot islamophilia and how it fitted as perfectly as possible a pisstakers ideal of a young swp member post-911

And you haven't even got the right board.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jul 12, 2012)

will there  be any of this?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Rs0OKPZEA...aVEm8/s1600/trotsky-punishing-two-sisters.jpg


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There was no lecherous shit posted around whatsoever


oh come on, the idiot lustbather did


----------



## Geoff Collier (Jul 12, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Yes it was indeedy Blackpool. One more demoralising feature of this Right to work March was that when we camped one night on the outskirts of some god-forsaken new town or other en route the , (very young) , youth of the place decended on us like vultures in the middle of the night and robbed us blind ! Leaving us wailing pathetically as they ran off gleefully with our kit .."But we're on your side comrades... solidarity.... come on give us back our clobber................... BASTARDS !"


That sounds like Kirby in September 1977.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 12, 2012)

Geoff Collier said:


> That sounds like Kirby in September 1977.


 

It bloody well WAS indeed Kirby 1977 ! What a depressing place Kirby was then - whole streets simply burned out in arson attacks by "the Youth". Hordes of rampaging youth roaring about in nicked cars throughout the night. All a bit of a harsh reality check to a Middle Class Trot like me... who thought the working class Youth would be linked arms, singing the Internationale ,throughout the long Proletarian nights !


----------



## malatesta32 (Jul 12, 2012)

kirkby was vile. me nan lived in the tower blocks there. terrifying! was the right to march the one where tom robinson turned up to entertain the marchers and got it in NME?


----------



## Geoff Collier (Jul 12, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> It bloody well WAS indeed Kirby 1977 ! What a depressing place Kirby was then - whole streets simply burned out in arson attacks by "the Youth". Hordes of rampaging youth roaring about in nicked cars throughout the night. All a bit of a harsh reality check to a Middle Class Trot like me... who thought the working class Youth would be linked arms, singing the Internationale ,throughout the long Proletarian nights !


Even for a council estate youth like myself it was a bit of a shock. The best thing about that march was the gig in Wigan Casino, even if the Pistols didn't turn up. I also remember a dinnertime break in a Blackpool nightclub (Tiffany's?) where they charged 42p for a pint. I organised a boycott until they reduced it to 30p


----------



## Geoff Collier (Jul 12, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> kirkby was vile. me nan lived in the tower blocks there. terrifying! was the right to march the one where tom robinson turned up to entertain the marchers and got it in NME?


No, that was the following year on the way to Brighton. We had John Cooper Clarke amongst others in 77


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> kirkby was vile. me nan lived in the tower blocks there. terrifying! was the right to march the one where tom robinson turned up to entertain the marchers and got it in NME?


 
Not all Kirby is like that, ever heard Teardrop Explodes 'Kirby Worker Dreams Fade', or Kirby Response Theatre, a WC collective, lots of other examples of self-organisation...


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> kirkby was vile. me nan lived in the tower blocks there. terrifying! was the right to march the one where tom robinson turned up to entertain the marchers and got it in NME?


 
Spoke to Robinson a few weeks back at an 'un-conference on music' (his keynote speech was scathing of the music biz) and reminded him of the camp-fires. He remembered those times "fondly".


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2012)

Anyone remember 'Barry the Badge'?


----------



## Geoff Collier (Jul 12, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Anyone remember 'Barry the Badge'?


From Leeds.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> Not all Kirby is like that, ever heard Teardrop Explodes 'Kirby Worker Dreams Fade', or Kirby Response Theatre, a WC collective, lots of other examples of self-organisation...


 
I'll take your word for it that all sorts of working class self organisation was also taking place in Kirby at the time... but blimey, the adults had certainly let it take on a "Lord of the Flies" reenactment feel at night by their complete lack of control over the Youth. No cops anywhere of course. Scary stuff... particularly for resident older people -- definitely a need for the local working class militia/vigilantees at that time. Wonder if its any better today ? A classic example of the disaster of free enterprise Liberalism in the micro social sphere -- and that was BEFORE the next 35 years of Thatcherite/Blairite Neo Liberal domination smashed working class organisation up even more.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There was no lecherous shit posted around whatsoever.


 
there was at the time and there has been since. maybe this is an issue over how you want to define lecherous (and regardless of that there was lechery, as belboid says) - but for a 16 year old having a load of grown blokes joking about how she's some kind of lefty catch or a winner or even just joking about how she might be the ideal girl for some stereotype swappo was pretty unpleasant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> there was at the time and there has been since. maybe this is an issue over how you want to define lecherous (and regardless of that there was lechery, as belboid says) - but for a 16 year old having a load of grown blokes joking about how she's some kind of lefty catch or a winner or even just joking about how she might be the ideal girl for some stereotype swappo was pretty unpleasant.


No there wasn't. I went back and looked at every single post relating to her earlier today. There was certainly nothing whatsoever like you suggest above - 'lefty catch', 'winner'? wtf  And idela girl meaning that if you wrote down every teenage trot cliche then she had them - not that she was an 'ideal girl' for some other swp member ffs.

Tell me, did you actually _see_ these posts from an other board entirely from 5/6 years ago?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> oh come on, the idiot lustbather did


 
No he didn't. It is fair to say things went a bit too far, but the email from her mum was fairly good natured if I recall (if it even was from her mum).


----------



## krink (Jul 12, 2012)

i will happily join any political party if they promise to groom me for sex.

tbf I won't take much grooming.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 12, 2012)

no i didn't see the original thread, i saw the other end of it plus the 'legacy' of it on here. i think this is going to have to come down to a severe crisis of interpretation


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 12, 2012)

Typical trot, don't allow complete ignorance of a subject prevent you spouting off a moralistic condemnation.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2012)

Is it just me or is all this chatter about who 'owned' the female comrades physically not only infantile but also sexist? People had sex as they do in any social setting, get over it.

02 or 03 yes Spanky but only in the bar, defo no meetings, was still in detox mode then.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2012)

The weather certainly didn't help the mood at Marxism this year but beyond that the conversations I had were very odd. None of the usual 'good god man why aren't you back in the ranks yet, how can you stand being a renegade' that I usually get. In fact a couple of times people laughed nervously when I mentioned things that reminded them they hadn't seen me since the purging of Rees, German et al. I think they know that lessens their appeal to a lot of people who still broadly share their politics. The SWP feels like an organisation that has been wounded and doesn't quite know how to heal itself beyond clinging to old certainties.


----------



## bignose1 (Jul 12, 2012)

Geoff Collier said:


> Even for a council estate youth like myself it was a bit of a shock. The best thing about that march was the gig in Wigan Casino, even if the Pistols didn't turn up. I also remember a dinnertime break in a Blackpool nightclub (Tiffany's?) where they charged 42p for a pint. I organised a boycott until they reduced it to 30p





Geoff Collier said:


> Even for a council estate youth like myself it was a bit of a shock. The best thing about that march was the gig in Wigan Casino, even if the Pistols didn't turn up. I also remember a dinnertime break in a Blackpool nightclub (Tiffany's?) where they charged 42p for a pint. I organised a boycott until they reduced it to 30p


Yeah I remember it was quite bitter...


----------



## discokermit (Jul 12, 2012)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the purging of Rees, German et al. I think they know that lessens their appeal to a lot of people


i bet it heightens the appeal to a lot more.


----------



## elbows (Jul 13, 2012)

Due to my interest in the Egyptian revolution I discovered they have youtube video of Hossam el-Hamalawy speaking at the event. I posted it in the Egyptian thread but I guess it belong here too. Takes about 8 minutes 15 seconds to introduce him.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 13, 2012)

Hossam and Gigi are the coolest and bravest Trots ever.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> oh come on, the idiot lustbather did


No he didn't but why don't you go somewhere like twitter where he's actually allowed to respond to you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> No he didn't but why don't you go somewhere like twitter where he's actually allowed to respond to you?


 
Exactly, it was his behaviour towards you that was much more disturbing and lecherous

oops looks like it was me who started the rumour

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/socialist-worker-up-to-their-old-tricks-again.272213/


----------



## malatesta32 (Jul 13, 2012)

treelover said:


> Not all Kirby is like that, ever heard Teardrop Explodes 'Kirby Worker Dreams Fade', or Kirby Response Theatre, a WC collective, lots of other examples of self-organisation...


all good stuff. however, me nan rarely went out, me grandad was blind and all in all it was a shit place for poor OAPs to end up. and the lifts smelt of wee.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> why don't you go somewhere like twitter where he's actually allowed to respond to you?


Cutting off my own foot has more appeal than having to have any kind of interactin with that shit, ta very much


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> Cutting off my own foot has more appeal than having to have any kind of interactin with that shit, ta very much


Don't let me stop you there....


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

if we're persistent we might get him to use his own shite as toothpaste


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 13, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My parents tell me that in 1970s people joined SWP type organisations at universities in order to get laid. How times have changed...


 
That's funny. I joined the SPGB as a teenager because of my addiction to Werther's Originals.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 14, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Why not squat a building and throw open the doors and only ask for donations?


good one


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 14, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> the question of grooming of attractive young men/ women in the SWP has been raised before, Anna Chen famously accused the party of operating a 'fuck circuit' in which the senior members of the party preyed on attractive young members rewarding them with full timer posts in return for sexual favours:
> 
> 
> > _I am astonished that Harman can write:_
> ...


think she's just being catty.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> With respect that's total bollocks.
> 
> The only people seeing the crowd on the webcam would be the crowd and the speakers, you numpty.
> 
> Or was The MOSSAD hacked into SOAS's PC to sneak a peak at Leila Khaled and us reprobates?



With absolutely no respect whatsoever, apart from when they place clips on youtube, as they do every single year. Those conspiracy theories sound far more down your street than mine.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2012)

Someone sent me a link to the David Harvey talk yesterday (the one mentioned earlier in the thread where he was apparently booed. I've not been able to watch it yet cos I can only get on the net with my phone at the minute so I can't tell you whether he really was booed but thought I'd post it anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2012)

No booing in that at all. I assume then that the alleged booing was at the debate with Callinicos. Harvey does an interesting talk here that is followed up by 6 questions that are either irrelevant or have missed his point entirely and 1 1/2 that seem to get it, that don't set up false oppositions between the workplace and everything else, that understand the _cycle_ of capital, that Harvey is talking about how class struggle effects the forms of urbanisation and wider ongoing capitalist re-organisation, that it's not about riots/occupy versus strikes, that struggles throw up different of autonomies that will not accept passive integration into traditional politics and so on.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 27, 2012)

You missed the groans then butchersapron? From about 54:05 in. Harvey criticises the SWP during the poll tax period, specifically in Oxford, using that as a means to recruit (clapping at this juncture). Harvey then goes on to state that this method of operating "destroyed the neighbourhood organisations" (less clapping and some groans at this point). Harvey then re-states his criticism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2012)

I made a specific note at that point - the autonomy bit in my post covers it. Lack of clapping is not booing! There was no booing in that clip.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 27, 2012)

Yes, but there are audible groans.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2012)

Sounds like a decent talk, now I'm gonna have to go and find a computer to listen to it on.


----------



## flypanam (Jul 27, 2012)

Has the SWP parted waves with Mike Davis? His book Magical Urbanism seems to cover much the same territory as Harvey's talk albeit focusing on LA and latios.


----------



## framed (Jul 27, 2012)

"parted waves" 

In the biblical sense?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 27, 2012)

framed said:


> "parted waves"
> 
> In the biblical sense?


 
They nailed him to the prow of their longboat.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 27, 2012)

flypanam said:


> Has the SWP parted waves with Mike Davis? His book Magical Urbanism seems to cover much the same territory as Harvey's talk albeit focusing on LA and latios.


 
Davis work on urban geography is clearly indebted to Harvey's work on the subject, but that's only a minority part of Harvey's more recent output.

As for Davis and the SWP, I think he may actually be a paper member of the US ISO again. He was in the ISO, then left with the pro-SWP/UK Left Turn splinter. Then left them with another pro-SWP/UK splinter when they in turn broke with the British party. That splinter now appears to be defunct, and while the ISO and SWP are still separate from each other they are no longer rabidly mutually hostile. I very much doubt if he's notably active in any group however.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Jul 29, 2012)

I didn’t go but the debates are shit = sectarian bollox
The leadership are grooming = abusive sectarian bollox
They’re not grooming cos they’re physically ugly = Offensive Sectarian bollox
All the full timers have been groomed = Offensive sexist Sectarian bollox
It’s too expensive why didn’t they squat somewhere = Rick of the young ones

You may not follow their particular line but you can’t knock them for the scope of the talks and the guests they have at their event. Who else is doing anything on such a scale? You?

Any criticism should be kept within a political context as anything else just sounds like griping.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 30, 2012)

Anudder Oik said:


> I didn’t go but the debates are shit = sectarian bollox
> The leadership are grooming = abusive sectarian bollox
> They’re not grooming cos they’re physically ugly = Offensive Sectarian bollox
> All the full timers have been groomed = Offensive sexist Sectarian bollox
> ...


you're wasting your time, you cannot have any sensible discussion about the SWP on here.  Best to stick to other topics, in my humble opinion.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 31, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you're wasting your time, you cannot have any sensible discussion about the SWP on here. Best to stick to other topics, in my humble opinion.


RMP3, is the fount of all wisdom on 'the truth' about the SWP, even though he was only a member for a few weeks, many years ago (he claims).
 those who have been members for years, who occupied positions of responsibility and trust within the SWP, and thus feel that their experience might give them some insight, are sadly deluded, as we have been driven crazy by our sectarian bitterness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you're wasting your time, you cannot have any sensible discussion about the SWP on here. Best to stick to other topics, in my humble opinion.


So why then do you have one and one only topic that you talk about- the SWP


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So why then so you have one and one only topic that you talk about- the SWP


What?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 31, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> RMP3, is the fount of all wisdom on 'the truth' about the SWP, even though he was only a member for a few weeks, many years ago (he claims).
> those who have been members for years, who occupied positions of responsibility and trust within the SWP, and thus feel that their experience might give them some insight, are sadly deluded, as we have been driven crazy by our sectarian bitterness.


This is what I mean, it's pointless, because you just make shit up.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 31, 2012)

Enjoyed this discussion, questions and debate. Particularly Harvey's comparison's between Volume 1 and Volume 2 of Capital, as well as on the issue of credit in the system.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 5, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> RMP3, is the fount of all wisdom on 'the truth' about the SWP, even though he was only a member for a few weeks, many years ago (he claims).
> those who have been members for years, who occupied positions of responsibility and trust within the SWP, and thus feel that their experience might give them some insight, are sadly deluded, as we have been driven crazy by our sectarian bitterness.


okay the thread has died, and just to put you in the picture so you don't have to tell lies in future;

I have said many many times on here I became involved in the SWP about 1985, I became a Marxist in 1989 when I eventually joined the SWP.  At branch level I held almost every position there was, and several positions on the district level.  I was also the agent [whatever it's called] for our SWP member who stood as the Socialist Alliance candidate.  The only reason I left the SWP, roughly 2000, was because further membership was likely to end my marriage to someone whom I loved and owed a great deal.

secondly, I have also said many many times there is no such thing as "a fount of all wisdom on the truth "on ANY topic.  There are just differences in estimations of the fact.  Such as, I regard the claim that the SWP gave up on gay rights as sectarian bullshit, and I do not see why I should have any reticence to share that opinion.


----------



## JHE (Aug 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I regard the claim that the SWP gave up on gay rights as sectarian bullshit, and I do not see why I should have any reticence to share that opinion.


 
The Social Workers are keen supporters of Islamists, especially the Moss Bros.  Do they ever take a break from cheer-leading and ask their Islamist masters not to persecute homos?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 5, 2012)

Can't resist.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 6, 2012)

JHE said:


> The Social Workers are keen supporters of Islamists, especially the Moss Bros. Do they ever take a break from cheer-leading and ask their Islamist masters not to persecute homos?


You and the sectarians can't resist making yourselves look like "cunts".


----------



## JHE (Aug 6, 2012)

I'll take that as a 'no', then.


----------



## ayatollah (Aug 6, 2012)

Someone may well have explained this before, if so I missed it.. but why does JHE's unrelenting Islamophobia over years all over these threads meet with such indifference, even amusement,  from other posters ?  " good old JHE .. banging on about the  Muslims again.. chuckle , chuckle ... nah he doesn't really mean it... wot a lad".

 I  certainly find it tiresome and offensive, Surely a poster  maundering on constantly about "the JEWS" would raise a few eyebrows and  a hostile response ? JHE, may offer seemingly "radical/Leftish" interpretations of some events  on some threads as a generality, but he is an unremitting  racist on the issue of Muslims FFS. His bonkers Islamophobia needs to be opposed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Gets boring after a while though. Much easier to go for a weekend break in Bradfordistan with al-respect and the rest of the islamotrots etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Hard to understand RMP3's posts on here - I mean we all know that he has a pathological obsession with all things SWP but, bizarrely enough, this is one thread where plenty posters (myself included) have been arguing against twattish anti-SWP sectarian bollocks - only Dr "I'm an annakissed and weally weally wadical, look at me look at me!" wingding has made posts that I'd expect a SWPer to take issue with and he's a mental wanker who nobody listens to anyway.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 6, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Surely a poster maundering on constantly about "the JEWS" would raise a few eyebrows and a hostile response ? .


 
Not from the Swaps and their mates they openly tolerate anti-semitism all over the place.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not from the Swaps and their mates they openly tolerate anti-semitism all over the place.


 
Do they? Can't say I've ever witnessed that to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

ayatollah said:
			
		

> Someone may well have explained this before, if so I missed it.. but why does JHE's unrelenting Islamophobia over years all over these threads meet with such indifference, even amusement,  from other posters ?  " good old JHE .. banging on about the  Muslims again.. chuckle , chuckle ... nah he doesn't really mean it... wot a lad".
> 
> I  certainly find it tiresome and offensive, Surely a poster  maundering on constantly about "the JEWS" would raise a few eyebrows and  a hostile response ? JHE, may offer seemingly "radical/Leftish" interpretations of some events  on some threads as a generality, but he is an unremitting  racist on the issue of Muslims FFS. His bonkers Islamophobia needs to be opposed.


I would like you to find a single post from anyone doing what you suggest is happening above, then a series of posts from you expressing unrelenting aggression to him and his views. And if you can't do both...

Fully expect this to be ignored, the same way that you ignore all posts put you on the spot in some way.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hard to understand RMP3's posts on here - I mean we all know that he has a pathological obsession with all things SWP but, bizarrely enough, this is one thread where plenty posters (myself included) have been arguing against twattish anti-SWP sectarian bollocks - only Dr "I'm an annakissed and weally weally wadical, look at me look at me!" wingding has made posts that I'd expect a SWPer to take issue with and he's a mental wanker who nobody listens to anyway.


 

(((((SpineyNorman))))


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do they? Can't say I've ever witnessed that to be honest.


 
They seem to of cuddled up in recent years to a few fruitloops......and I'm not even taking your type into account.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Someone may well have explained this before, if so I missed it.. but why does JHE's unrelenting Islamophobia over years all over these threads meet with such indifference, even amusement, from other posters ? " good old JHE .. banging on about the Muslims again.. chuckle , chuckle ... nah he doesn't really mean it... wot a lad".
> 
> I certainly find it tiresome and offensive, Surely a poster maundering on constantly about "the JEWS" would raise a few eyebrows and a hostile response ? JHE, may offer seemingly "radical/Leftish" interpretations of some events on some threads as a generality, but he is an unremitting racist on the issue of Muslims FFS. His bonkers Islamophobia needs to be opposed.


I fully endorse your statements.  I find some of the posters on here pandering to Islamaphobia, and lending a hard left, revolutionary left, or however they would describe themselves, veneer to Islamaphobia, which in many cases just seems a thinly veiled excuse to attack the SWP, outrageous and politically bankrupt.

I apologise for my previous post, and agree with you, he's nothing but racist scum, and should be treated the same as Jew haters.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

You mean form an electoral coalition with them and let them lead your midlands group?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do they? Can't say I've ever witnessed that to be honest.


when there are so many serious and quite legitimate criticisms that could be made of the SWP, the concentration on almost entirely bullshit would be laughable, if it weren't so tedious. IMO


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I would like you to find a single post from anyone doing what you suggest is happening above, then a series of posts from you expressing unrelenting aggression to him and his views. And if you can't do both...
> 
> Fully expect this to be ignored, the same way that you ignore all posts put you on the spot in some way.


LOL Mr Kettle


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

SWP


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

Why is everyone obsessed with the SWP? They can't stop talking about them.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

SWP


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hard to understand RMP3's posts on here - I mean we all know that he has a pathological obsession with all things SWP but, bizarrely enough, this is one thread where plenty posters (myself included) have been arguing against twattish anti-SWP sectarian bollocks - only Dr "I'm an annakissed and weally weally wadical, look at me look at me!" wingding has made posts that I'd expect a SWPer to take issue with and he's a mental wanker who nobody listens to anyway.


it is one of the few threads where plenty of posters have been arguing against anti-SWP sectarian bollocks, the only intention of my posts is to concur with them people.  What's hard to understand about that?I'm just joining in with those arguing against it.  As that is virtually in a nutshell my obsession.  It's not so much an obsession with the SWP, as an obsession with people passing of opinion and downright lies about the SWP [and myself], as fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

SWP


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why is everyone obsessed with the SWP? They can't stop talking about them.


a strange statement.  I would say there has been a marked decrease in the level of obsession on these boards in recent years.  At one time there was stupid post about the SWP almost every day from your comrade [I forget his name].perhaps it's because you have come to your senses, or perhaps it is the fact that the SWP comrades have come to their senses and stop wasting their time here.  Who knows.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

SWP. Stop talking about the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> They seem to of cuddled up in recent years to a few fruitloops......and I'm not even taking your type into account.


where as people like you only seem to cuddle up to your willy, wanking about how politically pure you are, in mostly splendid and inconsequential isolation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> SWP. Stop talking about the SWP.


are you feeling alright today butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

tummy.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> where as people like you only seem to cuddle up to your willy, wanking about how politically pure you are, in mostly splendid and inconsequential isolation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> tummy.


armpit. 

BTW, you're making stuff up again.  To put it another way, lying.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> where as people like you only seem to cuddle up to your willy, wanking about how politically pure you are, in mostly splendid and inconsequential isolation.


 
Nurse! The screens!


----------



## JHE (Aug 7, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Someone may well have explained this before, if so I missed it.. but why does JHE's unrelenting Islamophobia over years all over these threads meet with such indifference, even amusement, from other posters ? " good old JHE .. banging on about the Muslims again.. chuckle , chuckle ... nah he doesn't really mean it... wot a lad".
> 
> I certainly find it tiresome and offensive, Surely a poster maundering on constantly about "the JEWS" would raise a few eyebrows and a hostile response ? JHE, may offer seemingly "radical/Leftish" interpretations of some events on some threads as a generality, but he is an unremitting racist on the issue of Muslims FFS. His bonkers Islamophobia needs to be opposed.


 
In the next instalment of the Toytown Ayatollah's fatwa, he will explain the correct punishment for opponents of sharia. I shudder to think what it will be. Stoning? Beheading? Limb-lopping: hand off one side, foot off the other side? Torture in the form of having to listen to a looped recording of a bunch of loyal Dhimmi-Trots alternately shouting "We are all Hezbollocks!" and "Vote Moss Bros!"?


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2012)

SWP, i shit em..............


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 7, 2012)

JHE said:


> In the next instalment of the Toytown Ayatollah's fatwa, he will explain the correct punishment for opponents of sharia. I shudder to think what it will be. Stoning? Beheading? Limb-lopping: hand off one side, foot off the other side? Torture in the form of having to listen to a looped recording of a bunch of loyal Dhimmi-Trots alternately shouting "We are all Hezbollocks!" and "Vote Moss Bros!"?


 
He might be a bit Socialist Worker Marxism by numbers and sometimes maybe even a bit hysterical. But he's worth 10 of you, you racist twat.


----------



## JHE (Aug 7, 2012)

A one-sided romance...


1. What Trots do to Islamists:






2. What Islamists do to Trots:


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2012)

where is that picture taken and when?


----------



## JHE (Aug 7, 2012)

The hangings were in Iran.  I don't know who those particular victims are.


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2012)

They were leftists, is this in the 70's, it doesn't look like it is?


----------



## ayatollah (Aug 7, 2012)

You must get treatment, or perhaps restart your existing tablets,  as soon as possible, for this sad obsession of yours, JHE. Admit it, you'd be a much happier man if you  could just go past a street corner Asian Quikimart and not be wetting yourself in case a Taliban hit squad rushes out and does unspeakable things to your bodily fluids.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 7, 2012)

JHE said:


> A one-sided romance...
> 
> 
> 1. What Trots do to Islamists:
> ...


 
I for one fucking detest Islamists, just as I detest the non-Muslim far-right, religious or not. Yet I somehow manage not to hate all Muslims and I miraculously enough manage to avoid making racist "jokes" (robbed from Melanie Phillips) about Bradfordistan and so on. How do I manage that I wonder?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> are you feeling alright today butchers?


 
He's probing to see whether you're at all reflexive.

I think that we can safely presume that you ar not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> armpit.
> 
> BTW, you're making stuff up again. To put it another way, lying.


 
Wow, rmp3 accusing butch of making stuff up.
Remind me, rmp3, who was it who had to make a grovelling apology after making shit up about butch?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2012)

treelover said:


> SWP, i shit em..............


 
Waste of peristalsis, that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> He might be a bit Socialist Worker Marxism by numbers and sometimes maybe even* a bit hysterical*. But he's worth 10 of you, you racist twat.


 
You master of understatement, you!


----------



## JHE (Aug 8, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I for one fucking detest Islamists...


 
I'm delighted to hear it, but you hide it well, Spineless.

Does your sect share your detestation of Islamism?  Perhaps you can show us anti-Sharia articles in 'The Socialist'.  I've never seen anything of the sort in your sect's propaganda.  

Last time I looked, which was a while ago, your little international, the CWI, had people in Pakistan and the Pakistani Trots faced terrifying persecution at the hands of Islamists.  I don't know how much of that gets reported in 'The Socialist'.  Anything at all?

In fact, I've never noticed anything in SP literature that dissents from the fashionable PC Islamophile consensus.

Perhaps I've just missed all the good stuff.  Perhaps your sect is genuinely much better than the Social Workers, but as far as I've seen so far it's just marginally less bad.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm delighted to hear it, but you hide it well, Spineless.
> 
> Does your sect share your detestation of Islamism? Perhaps you can show us anti-Sharia articles in 'The Socialist'. I've never seen anything of the sort in your sect's propaganda.
> 
> ...


 
In contrast with the reality-free world you live in, in the world I live in political Islam isn't really a major problem in the UK and so most sane people don't share your monomaniacal obsession and thus you'll probably struggle to find an article about Islamism in The Socialist. But I can tell you that we were very critical of the SWP's pro-MB line in the Egyptian elections and the Tunisian section has had to physically confront Islamists. And "the fashionable PC Islamophile consensus." is just not being a cunt and tarring all Muslims with the Islamist brush and using Melanie Phillips's catchphrases isn't it?

We've never snuggled up to Islamists in the way the SWP have in recent years. And the CWI line on Israel Palestine is that of the two state solution (not one I'm really convinced by as it goes, I'd favour a single secular state that guarantees rights for all its citizens, but nothing to do with loving Al-Qaeda or whatever - it's because the only basis for having two states is along ethnic/religious lines and when you have states where citizenship is based on ethnicity/religion then ethnic cleansing is never far away).

I've just done a quick search for "Islamist" on the website - these are the first three links: link 1 link 2 link 3. Unless your definition of Islamophilia is even more out of touch with reality than your world view nothing in those links could be described as such. If you want to check more then be my guest and do a search on the website but I can't be fucked.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You master of understatement, you!


 
Good innit? And that's not even the biggest understatement in that post


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wow, rmp3 accusing butch of making stuff up.
> Remind me, rmp3, who was it who had to make a grovelling apology after making shit up about butch?


That's the difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2012)

That you make up stuff and others don't. Yes, very 'cool'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> That's the difference.


 
You tell fibs and invent stuff that people have said, and then have to apologise for it, and the difference is that others don't do that?

And there was me thinking that you weren't reflexive!


----------



## october_lost (Aug 8, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> in the world I live in political Islam isn't really a major problem in the UK


You mean aside from reinvigorating the far-right and being a barrier to class unity. No, it isn't a major problem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2012)

october_lost said:


> You mean aside from reinvigorating the far-right and being a barrier to class unity. No, it isn't a major problem.


 
Surely what you're talking about here isn't political Islam so much as particular perceptions and selective viewing of political Islam?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

october_lost said:


> You mean aside from reinvigorating the far-right and being a barrier to class unity. No, it isn't a major problem.


in any 'war' the 'enemy' is vilified through propaganda. Some fall for it, some don't.

Which specific demands of political Islam do you object to? That American troops are removed from 'their lands'?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in any war the 'enemy' is vilified through propaganda. Some fall for it, some don't.
> 
> Which specific demands of political Islam do you object to? That American troops are removed from 'their lands'?


Which specific demands of political Islam do you object to?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You tell fibs and invent stuff that people have said, and then have to apologise for it, and the difference is that others don't do that?
> 
> And there was me thinking that you weren't reflexive!


Echo.
Take your tongue out of butchers arse Panda, it is impeding your lying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Echo.
> Take your tongue out of butchers arse Panda, it is impeding your lying.


Yeh, you never let anyhing get in the way of your mendacity


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, you never let anyhing get in the way of your mendacity


Ah, thanks for jogging my memory.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> a strange statement. I would say there has been a marked decrease in the level of obsession on these boards in recent years. At one time there was stupid post about the SWP almost every day from your comrade [I forget his name].perhaps it's because you have come to your senses, or perhaps it is the fact that the SWP comrades have come to their senses and stop wasting their time here. Who knows.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2012)

How odd. Rmp3 posting about the swp.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Ah, thanks for jogging my memory.


Fucking jog on you dull twat


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How odd. Rmp3 posting about the swp.


As 'humour' and any sort of a point, that is an epic fail.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Fucking jog on you dull twat


A play on the word jogging, as in jogging my memory.  Well done!  An amazing display of witty repartee.  I wish I was as enthralling as you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

Not likely to happen, is it? Even the most elementary word play is beyond you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 9, 2012)

october_lost said:


> You mean aside from reinvigorating the far-right and being a barrier to class unity. No, it isn't a major problem.


 
That's something entirely separate. JHE's claiming that unless you come out with precisely the kind of divisive shit the far right do (painting all Muslims as Islamists etc) you're an "Islamophile".


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Not likely to happen, is it? Even the most elementary word play is beyond you.


I count my blessings, as you are about as funny as a fart in a lift.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I count my blessings, as you are about as funny as a fart in a lift.


 
That's quite funny to be fair.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> That's quite funny to be fair.


but hardly original


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but hardly original


now that is witty.


----------



## october_lost (Aug 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely what you're talking about here isn't political Islam so much as particular perceptions and selective viewing of political Islam?


Political Islam doesn't exist in a vacuum, in much the same way that the bolstering of the far-right can directly be responsible for racist violence and push electoral politics into reactionary channels, political Islam fosters a parochialism already apparent within a conservative community.


----------



## october_lost (Aug 9, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in any 'war' the 'enemy' is vilified through propaganda. Some fall for it, some don't.
> 
> Which specific demands of political Islam do you object to? That American troops are removed from 'their lands'?


This sounds like anti-imperialism for fools. I want to overcome the insular nature of multiculturalism you and your chums pander to and push for independent working class politics. I don't want to tail-end a reactionary group through a faction fight because I can't fathom the difference between mine and their trajectory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Echo.
> Take your tongue out of butchers arse Panda, it is impeding your lying.


 
You're a fibber and a fantasist. You accused butch of saying something he hadn't said, then you *insisted* that he'd said it several times without providing any proof, and *then* you had to make a grovelling apology when it turned out that he hadn't said what you claimed *at all*.

I'm not tonguing anyone's arse, I'm letting posters know what a mendacious sod you are (like we didn't already know that, but hey, what can you do?). I'm not lying either, however many times you say so in an attempt to cover up your own history of lying like a cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in any 'war' the 'enemy' is vilified through propaganda. Some fall for it, some don't.
> 
> Which specific demands of political Islam do you object to? That American troops are removed from 'their lands'?


 
"Political Islam" _per se_ doesn't have those demands. Some *strands* of "political Islam" do.

I'd have thought that a devotee of the Swappite faith would have been more careful to differentiate between the varied aims of different "sects".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2012)

october_lost said:


> Political Islam doesn't exist in a vacuum, in much the same way that the bolstering of the far-right can directly be responsible for racist violence and push electoral politics into reactionary channels, political Islam fosters a parochialism already apparent within a conservative community.


 
1) Political Islam isn't a homogeneous entity, just as the far-right aren't. It's not particularly sensible to either think that they are or behave as if they are.
2) Of course "political Islam" doesn't exist in a vacuum. No politics does.
3) Your last sentence reads as if you're conflating all Muslims practicing all forms of Islam as a single "conservative community". If that's what you're attempting to state, then it's bollocks. If it isn't, please make yourself clearer, or you risk coming over as being just as blinkered and "one-track" as JHE does.


----------



## october_lost (Aug 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> 3) Your last sentence reads as if you're conflating all Muslims practicing all forms of Islam as a single "conservative community". If that's what you're attempting to state, then it's bollocks. If it isn't, please make yourself clearer, or you risk coming over as being just as blinkered and "one-track" as JHE does.


Nothing one tracked about it. Post 9-11 Muslims have been very defensive, which causes people to seek comfort in well worked identities, hence why we have had all number of arguments in recent time about hijabs etc and this has set a very regressive and insular tone with people wanting to contest 'their culture'. Secularism as taken a major setback in a very short space of time and the left should be uneasy about that, but that doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2012)

october_lost said:


> Nothing one tracked about it. Post 9-11 Muslims have been very defensive, which causes people to seek comfort in well worked identities, hence why we have had all number of arguments in recent time about hijabs etc and this has set a very regressive and insular tone with people wanting to contest 'their culture'. Secularism as taken a major setback in a very short space of time and the left should be uneasy about that, but that doesn't appear to be the case.


 
You're doing it again, : taking minority reactions and arguments and generalising them across Islam.

Let's look at some of the tropes you're pushing:

"Post 9-11 Muslims have been very defensive" - Post 11th Spetember 2001 many Muslim communities were *forced* to adopt defensive postures because idiots who couldn't distinguish one brand of Islam from another took offensive action against them, including state-level idiots.

"...causes people to seek comfort in well worked identities..." - a phenomenon that takes place *everywhere*, not just among Muslims who "have been very defensive". It's called "interpellating with a facet of personal identity", and is a boringly well-documented psychological feature.

"...all number of arguments..." - From *some* Muslims and some state actors and media outlets too. This isn't just a "Muslim thing", it's an ongoing development of cultural friction common to *all* culture.

"...Secularism as [sic] taken a major setback in a very short space of time and the left should be uneasy about that, but that doesn't appear to be the case" - Secularism hasn't taken a major setback, unless you're talking about the trend toward the secularisation of Islam, and even there it's different strokes for different folks - Turks are on the whole aggressively secular, but are still Muslims. If you really want to worry about the secular vs. religious argument w/r/t Islam, worry about the Wahhabis buying people to their form of worship by providing them with things that the states of those people don't, such as healthcare and (twisted though it is) education.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a fibber and a fantasist. You accused butch of saying something he hadn't said, then you *insisted* that he'd said it several times without providing any proof, and *then* you had to make a grovelling apology when it turned out that he hadn't said what you claimed *at all*.
> 
> I'm not tonguing anyone's arse, I'm letting posters know what a mendacious sod you are (like we didn't already know that, but hey, what can you do?). I'm not lying either, however many times you say so in an attempt to cover up your own history of lying like a cunt.


 Is butchers the only person I have apologised to?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

The swp? If not, you really really should.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Is butchers the only person I have apologised to?


Do you mean apologised to for lying about or just apologised?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Is butchers the only person I have apologised to?


i wondered how long it would be before your memory packed up.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Do you mean apologised to for lying about or just apologised?


Either?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Either?


this will end well


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Either?


You asked the question, you tell me. Am i the only person that you've apologised to for making up stuff about or are there others? Are there other people that you've just apologised to?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You asked the question, you tell me. Am i the only person that you've apologised to for making up stuff about or are there others? Are there other people that you've just apologised to?


Yes. That's why the  was used. Understand?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

So. The only person that you've lied about and been forced to apologise to is me? Why did you mention that? (if true). Why point out that you only lie about certain people?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So. The only person


sorry.  I should've edited your post.


butchersapron said:


> Are there other people that you've just apologised to?


Yes. That's why the  was used. Understand?​http://www.urban75.net/forums/members/resistancemp3.5449/​


----------



## Random (Aug 10, 2012)

I don't btw


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> sorry. I should've edited your post.
> 
> Yes. That's why the  was used. Understand?​


No.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No.


Rightly or wrongly, I take some pride in the fact that when I am wrong, I admit it.  The apology I made to you several years ago, was as much for my honesty, as your 'feelings'.  I could have just sidled off, and never conceded my error.  but I choose to acknowledge that I had misquoted you, said you had said something you haven't, several years earlier.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Rightly or wrongly, I take some pride in the fact that when I am wrong, I admit it. The apology I made to you several years ago, was as much for my honesty, as your 'feelings'. I could have just sidled off, and never conceded my error. but I choose to acknowledge that I had misquoted you, said you had said something you haven't, several years earlier.


So why did you a few days later suggest that you were right and justified to make up stuff that i said? Was that pride?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So why did you a few days later suggest that you were right and justified to make up stuff that i said? Was that pride?


Ahhhh, though you never said it succinctly, it was then and it remains the only way I could encapsulate your many many many discussions on the topic.  I acknowledge that you are very aggrieved by this 'misrepresentation' of your position.  And perhaps my summarisation is a product of my political perspective, distorting your intention. but the fact that you point blank refuse/d to clarify, must bear some culpability, imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Rightly or wrongly, I take some pride in the fact that when I am wrong, I admit it. The apology I made to you several years ago, was as much for my honesty, as your 'feelings'. I could have just sidled off, and never conceded my error. but I choose to acknowledge that I had misquoted you, said you had said something you haven't, several years earlier.


 


ResistanceMP3 said:


> Ahhhh, though you never said it succinctly, it was then and it remains the only way I could encapsulate your many many many discussions on the topic. I acknowledge that you are very aggrieved by this 'misrepresentation' of your position. And perhaps my summarisation is a product of my political perspective, distorting your intention. but the fact that you point blank refuse/d to clarify, must bear some culpability, imo.


 
_I sincerely apologise for your error._


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _I sincerely apologise for your error._


LOL nice one.  Hey, we are all fallible.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> wtf is wrong with you?


you need to clarify. there are a lot of things 'wrong' with me.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

Genius, you want claps for admitting you were wrong to invent a quote but also to argue that you were right to invent a quote.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you need to clarify. there are a lot of things 'wrong' with me.


See above, your lying problem, your honour problem.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Genius, you want claps for admitting you were wrong to invent a quote but also to argue that you were right to invent a quote.


Nope. What I actually said was.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> Rightly or wrongly, *I take some pride* in the fact that when I am wrong, I admit it. The apology I made to you several years ago, *was as much for my honesty*, as your 'feelings'. I could have just sidled off, and never conceded my error. but I choose to acknowledge that I had misquoted you, said you had said something you haven't, several years earlier.


Understand?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> your honour problem.


What?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Nope. What I actually said was.Understand?


 
No. You take some pride in admitting that you made some quotes up and being made to apologise but you think that you were right to make quotes up. Understand?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What?


 
Easy - it is a mater of honour form me that i apologise for making quotes up (why it wasn't a matter of honour before you don't touch on) but it was the other persons fault i made the quotes up.

Honour? Understand?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Easy - it is a mater of honour form me that i apologise for making quotes up (why it wasn't a matter of honour before you don't touch on) but it was the other persons fault i made the quotes up.
> 
> Honour? Understand?


 is that a lie or a misrepresentation?

I've explained many times on here why "you should never lie to the class" imo, and it had absolutely nothing to do with honour.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No. You take some pride in admitting that you made some quotes up and being made to apologise but you think that you were right to make quotes up. Understand?


you clearly don't understand.




butchersapron said:


> Genius, you want claps for admitting you were wrong to invent a quote but also to argue that you were right to invent a quote.


Nope. What I actually said was.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> Rightly or wrongly, *I take some pride* in the fact that when I am wrong, I admit it. The apology I made to you several years ago, *was as much for my honesty*, as your 'feelings'. I could have just sidled off, and never conceded my error. but I choose to acknowledge that I had misquoted you, said you had said something you haven't, several years earlier.


Understand?


It's of no consequence whatsoever if people clap.  It has nothing to do with other people's opinions.  It's about being honest with myself. "_To thine own self be true"_

But you are right, it is not something to be really proud about, admitting you are wrong.but, if you look through most political forums, it's quite rare.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> is that a lie or a misrepresentation?
> 
> I've explained many times on here why "you should never lie to the class" imo, and it had absolutely nothing to do with honour.


yes, it's always 'YOU', it's always OTHER PEOPLE who should never lie: why don't you apply the same standards to yourself that you demand of others?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> is that a lie or a misrepresentation?
> 
> I've explained many times on here why "you should never lie to the class" imo, and it had absolutely nothing to do with honour.


You making up quotes was a lie. That's why you apologised. Why you later now feel that you were right to lie can only be justified by thinking that lying is correct and honourable and the right thing to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you clearly don't understand.


I understand. You lied, got caught. Apologised. Then/now suggest that you were right to lie and it was the honourable thing to do.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You making up quotes was a lie. That's why you apologised. Why you later now feel that you were right to lie can only be justified by thinking that lying is correct and honourable and the right thing to do.


is misremembering what somebody said from several years earlier a lie?

God knows how you actually remember all this. Wasn't the original discussion about 10 years ago? Do you want to bring up what you found so offensive?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> is misremembering what somebody said from several years earlier a lie?
> 
> God knows how you actually remember all this. Wasn't the original discussion about 10 years ago? Do you want to bring up what you found some offensive?


Is making up a quote a lie? I think so. You think so. That's why you apologised.

Is trying to weasel out of it by saying that you were right to make up a quote one of the most pathetic things seen on here? Yes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> wtf is wrong with you?


Just out of interest, what is wrong with you?  Do you have any faults?  Are you ever wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

Is making up a quote a lie? I think so. You think so. That's why you apologised.

Is trying to weasel out of it by saying that you were right to make up a quote one of the most pathetic things seen on here? Yes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is making up a quote a lie? I think so. You think so. That's why you apologised.


is misremembering what somebody said a lie?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> is misremembering what somebody said a lie?


Making up what someone said, inventing a quote and repeatedly insisting that said it is a lie. Why is why you apologised for doing it. You agree? That is lying?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

wasn't it something to do with, I said you'd said your position was the same as the Stalinist?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> wasn't it something to do with, I said you'd said your position was the same as the Stalinist?


It was to do with you making up a quote and a position.

If you don't know then why are you suggesting that you were right to make up a lie?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It was to do with you making up a quote and a position.
> 
> If you don't know then why are you suggesting that you were right to make up a lie?


So what was the quote? And the position?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

You made it up, you tell us. You apologised for making it up, you tell us. Your source material, you tell us.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You made it up, you tell us. You apologised for making it up, you tell us. Your source material, you tell us.


you dont know do you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

how can you get so upset?


----------



## rioted (Aug 10, 2012)

OMG! School playgrounds! Or one of those mad relationship things where you have to apologise but you're given no clue as to what to!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you dont know do you.


Of course i do. I don't need to know that you apologised for making it up. Why did you do that?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

rioted said:


> OMG! School playgrounds! Or one of those mad relationship things where you have to apologise but you're given no clue as to what to!


You can take time out to big up john major.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

as far as I remember, and it is a long time ago so do not quote me on this.
I said you said your position was the same as the Stalinists.  And when I looked at it in the original discussion from 10 years ago, in my opinion it was.  You agreed with the Stalinists that the KPD should not have worked with the SDP, didn't you? Don't you?  But I don't think you actually said anywhere "my position is the same as the Stalinist".

Your position is pretty much the same today with modern day fascists, isn't it?  Don't work with the Labour Party etc?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

rioted said:


> OMG! School playgrounds! Or one of those mad relationship things where you have to apologise but you're given no clue as to what to!


it is like a love affair, unfortunately for butchers it is unrequited.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You can take time out to big up john major.


WTF?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> as far as I remember, and it is a long time ago so do not quote me on this.
> I said you said your position was the same as the Stalinists. And when I looked at it in the original discussion from 10 years ago, in my opinion it was. You agreed with the Stalinists that the KPD should not have worked with the SDP, didn't you? Don't you? But I don't think you actually said anywhere "my position is the same as the Stalinist".
> 
> Your position is pretty much the same today with modern day fascists, isn't it? Don't work with the Labour Party etc?


What quote did you make up and apologise for?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> as far as I remember, and it is a long time ago so do not quote me on this.
> I said you said your position was the same as the Stalinists. And when I looked at it in the original discussion from 10 years ago, in my opinion it was. You agreed with the Stalinists that the KPD should not have worked with the SDP, didn't you? Don't you? But I don't think you actually said anywhere "my position is the same as the Stalinist".
> 
> Your position is pretty much the same today with modern day fascists, isn't it? Don't work with the Labour Party etc?


now I can understand how this categorisation of your argument may may offend you, but at the end of the day is just an opinion, get over it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

Nice to see you rioted - how's feminazis going? Good choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> now I can understand how this categorisation of your argument may may offend you, but at the end of the day is just an opinion, get over it.


What quote did you make up and apologise for? What quote did you today (a few years after you invented it which was 6 or so years after the original discussion) say that you feel you were right to invent? Why? Get over it. Get over it then. Get over it now.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nice to see you rioted - how's feminazis going? Good choice.


what's happening here, did somebody else say something wrong?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What quote did you make up and apologise for? What quote did you today (a few years after you invented it which was 6 or so years after the original discussion) say that you feel you were right to invent? Why? Get over it. Get over it then. Get over it now.


 
 go for it butch


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What quote did you make up and apologise for?


 I have already said what I remember.


ResistanceMP3 said:


> as far as I remember, and it is a long time ago so do not quote me on this.
> I said you said your position was the same as the Stalinists. And when I looked at it in the original discussion from 10 years ago, in my opinion it was. You agreed with the Stalinists that the KPD should not have worked with the SDP, didn't you? Don't you? But I don't think you actually said anywhere "my position is the same as the Stalinist".
> 
> Your position is pretty much the same today with modern day fascists, isn't it? Don't work with the Labour Party etc?


understand?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2012)

What did you do? Not what do you remember. You've already said that you know what you did (this is your basis for saying that you were right to make it up).

You're making me as boring as you now. Understand?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 10, 2012)

This is going well. Do you intentionally ruin every thread where the SWP are mentioned RMP3?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is going well. Do you intentionally ruin every thread where the SWP are mentioned RMP3?


yes [/rmp3]


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 11, 2012)

Ive long been a fan of Leilas but Im amazed they let her back on a plane to go to this thing.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 11, 2012)

JHE said:


> The hangings were in Iran. I don't know who those particular victims are.


 
by the look of the trousers id say they were new romantics.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

Casually Red said:
			
		

> Ive long been a fan of Leilas but Im amazed they let her back on a plane to go to this thing.


They didn't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Is butchers the only person I have apologised to?


 
No, you've had to do it fairly often. It's to do with your habit of blustering and telling fibs. Too often you misinterpret or misrepresent what someone else says because either you don't actually understand the point they're making, or because it suits your politics to do so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> by the look of the trousers id say they were new romantics.


 
MC Hammer fans. They told Khomeini "you can't touch this", and he proved them wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this will end well


 
Nice avatar. 

You realise that articul8 will claim it's your school photo?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What?


 
You're referring to your sense of honour, and then immediately saying something that contradicts any claim to honour that you've made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> WTF?


 
rioted bigged up John Major on another thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nice avatar.
> 
> You realise that articul8 will claim it's your school photo?


It's true 

I was school bully at greybridge in 1913


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

excuse me editing your post.


ViolentPanda said:


> No, you do it fairly often.Too often you misinterpret or misrepresent what someone else says because either you don't actually understand the point they're making,the or because it suits your politics to do so.


Butchers and yourself are far too intelligent and articulate to not understand the difference between a mistake and lie.  in your post, the former is a mistake, the latter a lie.  I've never denied the former, only the latter.

What I said in this post a long long time ago was to my memory untrue.  At the time of saying it I did not know it was untrue, it was only when I went over the previous discussion I realised it.  I had mis-remembered. 

that I categorised butcher's position as basically Stalinist, is an exploration of why I misremembered, not as butchers misrepresents my words as saying.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

Wtf?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> rioted bigged up John Major on another thread.


I guessed that, just wondering why he has this incessant need to correct everybody, and tell them what they are thinking.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're referring to your sense of honour, and then immediately saying something that contradicts any claim to honour that you've made.


you are either lying or misrepresenting me. ;p

Don't you find this at all tedious?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> excuse me editing your post.
> 
> Butchers and yourself are far too intelligent and articulate to not understand the difference between a mistake and lie. in your post, the former is a mistake, the latter a lie. I've never denied the former, only the latter.
> 
> ...


Seriously  - anyone?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously - anyone?


sometimes you tell people to ignore me, and then you're asking them to engage.  This really is one of those love hate relationships isn't it butchers.  The girl just cannot make her mind up. :*


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

I'm asking people if they have any idea what on earth you said in that post. I think it may well be your most bizarre unhinged post yet.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

delete


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm asking people if they have any idea what on earth you said in that post. I think it may well be your most bizarre unhinged post yet.


A lie is an INTENTIONALLY false statement. Understand?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

You _accidentally _invented a quote and argued that i had actually said it for a number of days? That is what you're saying?

(and keep to posts that length- it makes it easier on everyone)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And there was me thinking that you weren't reflexive!


can you explain what you mean by reflexive?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> excuse me editing your post.
> 
> Butchers and yourself are far too intelligent and articulate to not understand the difference between a mistake and lie. in your post, the former is a mistake, the latter a lie. I've never denied the former, only the latter.
> 
> ...


 
You always see your own motivations in terms of your mistakes being accidental and occasional ("misremembering" for example) rather than the result of partisan analysis.
I suggest that the latter has as much to do with it as the former.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You _accidentally _invented a quote and argued that i had actually said it for a number of days? That is what you're saying?
> 
> (and keep to posts that length- it makes it easier on everyone)


you keep saying quote.  I don't think I put quotation marks around it or anything like.

But yes, that is what at the time I remembered you saying.  I seriously thought you had said it.  It wasn't till several days later when I went back and trawled through pages and pages, I proved myself wrong.

I mean think about it, why would I deny lying, if I had apologised for lying?  It's illogical. I apologised for misquoting you.  Simples.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I guessed that, just wondering why he has this incessant need to correct everybody, and tell them what they are thinking.


 
It's a basic of debate and enquiry. It's called "establishing the facts". That's "facts" as opposed to "partisan interpretation" or "opinion", by the way.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You always see your own motivations in terms of your mistakes being accidental and occasional ("misremembering" for example) rather than the result of partisan analysis.
> I suggest that the latter has as much to do with it as the former.


I absolutely agree with you.  I have said so earlier in the thread, that I accept my 'misrepresentation' of butchers position may be due to my perspective.

are you saying you never do the same?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you are either lying or misrepresenting me. ;p


 
No, I analysed the post I quoted, and posted the result of that analysis. 



> Don't you find this at all tedious?


 
Yes, but tedious though it is, letting someone get away with mendacity is the other option, and I'm not willing to do that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I absolutely agree with you. I have said so earlier in the thread, that I accept my 'misrepresentation' of butchers position may be due to my perspective.
> 
> are you saying you never do the same?


 
No, I'm saying that most sensible people make their position clear *before* before debating, rather than indulging in _post-hoc_ self-justification and positioning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> can you explain what you mean by reflexive?


 
Engaged in self-analysis. Looking within to establish why you think, believe or feel a particular way about something.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a basic of debate and enquiry. It's called "establishing the facts". That's "facts" as opposed to "partisan interpretation" or "opinion", by the way.


what's wrong with a different opinion? Politics isn't really a sciences it, what are the facts?  Your facts?  Or the SWP's facts?  different interpretations of the facts is not only welcome, it is believed to be an absolute necessity.

what did gramsci have to say about knowing the facts?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm saying that most sensible people make their position clear *before* before debating, rather than indulging in _post-hoc_ self-justification and positioning.


you need to explain post-hoc self-justification and positioning


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Engaged in self-analysis. Looking within to establish why you think, believe or feel a particular way about something.


well I don't know whether I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but I would say largely that is the point of my posts.  To have my views challenged, to establish whether what I believe is true.so yes, in that sense my posts are reflexive.

And before you jump to the wrong conclusion again, this isn't a matter of honour, just simple curiosity. 

which still leaves the puzzle, why do you devote so much time to what seems a pretty meaningless task for you?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm saying that most sensible people make their position clear *before* before debating, rather than indulging in _post-hoc_ self-justification and positioning.


so you do accept you misrepresent people 'accidentally' or 'intentionally'?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I analysed the post I quoted, and posted the result of that analysis.


curious, I'm just curious.  What word/s did you interpret as a sense of honour from my quote?





> Yes, but tedious though it is, letting someone get away with mendacity is the other option, and I'm not willing to do that.


why?
[perceived mendacity]


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you keep saying quote. I don't think I put quotation marks around it or anything like.
> 
> But yes, that is what at the time I remembered you saying. I seriously thought you had said it. It wasn't till several days later when I went back and trawled through pages and pages, I proved myself wrong.
> 
> I mean think about it, why would I deny lying, if I had apologised for lying? It's illogical. I apologised for misquoting you. Simples.


_You_ proved yourself wrong days later? How very Holmes of you. Of course it was nothing to do with me and others pointing out to you within minutes of your post that you had both _misread_ my position (from some thread 7 bloody years ago) and _invented_ - yes invented - a conversation between us in which i had outlined what you claim was my position.

And guess , what - there's even more nonsense about what actually happened in that post above. It wasn't days later where you made an apology - it was the next day. What _did_ happen days later was you coming back and calling me a liar - yes, a liar - and claiming again that the conversation where i had outlined what you thought was my position did in fact take place.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _You_ proved yourself wrong days later? How very Holmes of you. Of course it was nothing to do with me and others pointing out to you within minutes of your post that you had both _misread_ my position (from some thread 7 bloody years ago) and _invented_ - yes invented - a conversation between us in which i had outlined what you claim was my position.
> 
> And guess , what - there's even more nonsense about what actually happened in that post above. It wasn't days later where you made an apology - it was the next day. What _did_ happen days later was you coming back and calling me a liar - yes, a liar - and claiming again that the conversation where i had outlined what you thought was my position did in fact take place.


So I was/am a lazy twat.  instead of doing the searches I try to rely upon my memory. I did say above, don't quote me.



> yes, a liar - and claiming again that the conversation where i had outlined what you thought was my position did in fact take place.


So *I* plainly believed, that the conversation we had outlined what I thought was your position. Yes?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

by the way, can you find me the post where they make a grovelling apology for lying?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So I was/am a lazy twat.  instead of doing the searches I try to rely upon my memory. I did say above, don't quote me.
> 
> So *I* plainly believed, that the conversation we had outlined what I thought was your position. Yes?


Jesus christ - you plainly believed that a conversation that we didn't have and that you apologised for saying did happen when it didn't, did in fact happen - and the real liar here is me for saying that it didn't. Not you for saying it did, not you for apologising for saying that it did, and not you for then saying that it did again.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> by the way, can you find me the post where they make a grovelling apology for lying?


My god, you're now_ inventing quotes from me_ from posts i made not 20 minutes ago. What on earth is wrong with you?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus christ - you plainly believed that a conversation that we didn't have and that you apologised for saying did happen when it didn't, did in fact happen - and the real liar here is me for saying that it didn't. Not you for saying it did, not you for apologising for saying that it did, and not you for then saying that it did again.


WTF?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

> frogwoman said: ↑
> RMP3 - you can't justt take what you think someone's said and then make a fake quote from them based on that though.​so why can people do that all the time with what I have said?


did I ever use the honour?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

OMG


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> My god, you're now_ inventing quotes from me_ from posts i made not 20 minutes ago. What on earth is wrong with you?


I didn't say you said it, I asked could you find it because you are so good at using the search facility. I think it was violent panda who used the word grovelling.


butchersapron said:


> I understand. You lied, got caught. Apologised. Then/now suggest that you were right to lie and it was the honourable thing to do.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> Well what can I say? Butchers is right, I shouldn't have said this;
> 
> That was factually incorrect. It was wrong. I shouldn't have said. No arguments.


 I never apologised for lying. I never did lie. And I don't think to lie is honourable or even expedient.

let's put this another way. I have said things on this board which MAY in fact be untrue, but I have not intentionally said things on these boards which I believe to be untrue.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2012)

Oh god. And the astonishing thing is that you admit you invented a position of mine, that you fabricated a conversation where i put this position to you, yet you call me a liar for pointing this out. Bonkers in the nut.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god. And the astonishing thing is that you admit you invented a position of mine, that you fabricated a conversation where i put this position to you, yet you call me a liar for pointing this out. Bonkers in the nut.


bonkers maybe





ResistanceMP3 said:


> Our conversation about the KPD DID take place. You never explained your real position.
> 
> In my mind, you will position remains an ultra left position like the KPD. I accept the possibility I may be wrong, but I will never know, because you will never explain it.
> 
> ...


but not intentionally saying what *I* believe to be untrue.

now shall we go over this conversation again next week?


----------



## october_lost (Aug 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're doing it again, : taking minority reactions and arguments and generalising them across Islam.


I am talking about Britain and to some extent the inherent Islamophilia of the SWP in the larger world.

Next time I am on a Palestianian demo, where the anti-semitism is beyond the pale (like it was in the Gaza Seige demo in 09) or I see some numpty radical islamic group go about unmolested, I will bear in mind your comments.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

october_lost said:


> I am talking about Britain and to some extent the inherent Islamophilia of the SWP in the larger world.


 
The SWP doesn't have "inherent Islamophilia".
The Islamophilia of the organisation and of individual members is based on instrumentalism. If it benefitted them to drop their current stance like a hot potato, then they would. In fact they have a history of doing so.



> Next time I am on a Palestianian demo, where the anti-semitism is beyond the pale (like it was in the Gaza Seige demo in 09) or I see some numpty radical islamic group go about unmolested, I will bear in mind your comments.


 
You do that. It'll say a lot more about you, than about anyone else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what's wrong with a different opinion? Politics isn't really a sciences it, what are the facts? Your facts? Or the SWP's facts? different interpretations of the facts is not only welcome, it is believed to be an absolute necessity.


 
One establishes core facts by debating opinions and the supporting evidence for those opinions, and seeing what rinses out, and what's left.
That means *not* retaining, for instrumental reasons, an interpretation that has proven to lack utility and value.



> what did gramsci have to say about knowing the facts?


 
Many many, entirely tedious, things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you need to explain post-hoc self-justification and positioning


 
You justify yourself "after the event" (oh, I'm sorry if I misrepresented you"), and position yourself as being an innocent (", it was an honest mistake!").


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so you do accept you misrepresent people 'accidentally' or 'intentionally'?


 
Everyone does both.
Of course, you have somewhat of a history of doing it that influences people to conclude that your misrepresentations are more intentional than accidental, but I suppose people should accept that actually you're just a king-sized eejit, and your misrepresentations are all accidental artifacts of stupidity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> curious, I'm just curious. What word/s did you interpret as a sense of honour from my quote?


 
It's about how you construct yourself when voicing your opinions. You present yourself as an honest broker.




> why?
> [perceived mendacity]


 
Not for your benefit. For the benefit of anyone who might read your misrepresentations (or the misrepresentations of others) and be fooled by them, even momentarily.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> OMG


 
It's obviously our fault for attributing to him traits he doesn't possess, such as honour.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

OMG indeed butchers.





ViolentPanda said:


> It's obviously our fault for attributing to him traits he doesn't possess, such as honour.


precisely.  It has nothing to do with honour.  You read, attribute qualities, then misrepresent and misunderstand my posts.  It works both ways.

I feel, my posts are SO misrepresented, on so many occasions, almost constant, by yourself and butchers that you must be trolling, for I know your both intelligent. but you do at least try to explain yourself, which contradicts you are trolling.

I claim/ed to be honest, but neither a broker or with honour.  It has nothing to do with "a sense of honour".  If you're interested, ask about the logic of that.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You justify yourself "after the event" (oh, I'm sorry if I misrepresented you"), and position yourself as being an innocent (", it was an honest mistake!").


let me get this clear.  Earlier in the thread you are arguing that I misunderstand and misrepresent butchers because of my politics, my political goggles so to speak.  Yes?and what your saying is, what I should do is clarify, and make absolutely sure what he's saying, before attributing a meaning to it, instead of jumping to conclusions.  Yes?  My failure to do this, means I am not innocent?


----------



## Random (Aug 12, 2012)

Stop it now!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Everyone does both.
> Of course, you have somewhat of a history of doing it that influences people to conclude that your misrepresentations are more intentional than accidental, but I suppose people should accept that actually you're just a king-sized eejit, and your misrepresentations are all accidental artifacts of stupidity.


well it's all about perception isn't it? Depersonalising this, quite honestly not many SWP members, from cliff to the present day, would recognise the SWP presented on here. Should they assume that misrepresentation is all down to stupidity or dishonesty? I don't think they would. Going back to something said earlier, I'm quite happy to accept you anarchists, and the SWP, come to different interpretations of the facts honestly. You plainly can't accept this. 

PS, It's hard to depersonalise even on that topic, when many of the attacks on the SWP seem to be personal, rather than political.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

Random said:


> Stop it now!


sorry mate, I've got time to kill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

Random said:


> Stop it now!


 
He can't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> well it's all about perception isn't it? Depersonalising this, quite honestly not many SWP members, from cliff to the present day, would recognise the SWP presented on here.


 
That's your opinion.
It's in opposition to the opinions of former SWP members expressed on these and other boards, so your formulation of "not many" is meaningless.



> Should they assume that misrepresentation is all down to stupidity our dishonesty? I don't think they would. Going back to something said earlier, I'm quite happy to accept you anarchists, and the SWP, come to different interpretations of the facts honestly. you plainly can't.


 
I speak for myself, not any other anarchists encompassed by your label "you anarchists". I've told you this many times, but you still, after years of me saying so, don't appear to grasp this central fact



> PS, It's hard to depersonalise even on that topic, when many of the attacks on the SWP seem to be personal, rather than political.


 
How can attacks on an organisation be "personal"?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Everyone does both.
> Of course, you have somewhat of a history of doing it that influences people to conclude that your misrepresentations are more intentional than accidental, but I suppose people should accept that actually you're just a king-sized eejit, and your misrepresentations are all accidental artifacts of stupidity.


well it's all about perception isn't it? Depersonalising this, quite honestly no one with a SWP perspective, from cliff to the present day, would recognise the SWP presented on here. Should they assume that misrepresentation is all down to stupidity or dishonesty? I don't think they would. Going back to something said earlier, I know from having spoke to many of them they are quite happy to accept the many flavours of anarchists, Socialists, Communists etc and the SWP, come to different interpretations of the facts honestly. You plainly can't accept this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

> PS, It's hard to depersonalise even on that topic, when many of the attacks on the SWP seem to be personal, rather than political.





ViolentPanda said:


> How can attacks on an organisation be "personal"?


 
it's hard to even depersonalise that topic, where many of the supposed attacks upon the SWP, seem to be aimed at the personnel, rather than the political/the politics of the organisation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He can't.


you complain when I try to clarify your position, and when I don't.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's your opinion.
> It's in opposition to the opinions of former SWP members expressed on these and other boards, so your formulation of "not many" is meaningless.
> 
> 
> ...


in fact all of this is just dishonestly intentionally misrepresenting what I said.


----------



## Random (Aug 13, 2012)

After about a decade of a few people going round in circles, exactly what are we working towards, with this discussion?


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 13, 2012)

I think a problem is that RMP3 has a very abstract political approach, he has not been active either in the swp or anywhere else for a long time, and so his defence of the SWP or of Leninism is of an idealised image of such, rather than anything based on reality. The presence, and happy coexistance of anarchists and Socialist Party (EW and GB!) members on urban belies the idea that trots, marxians and anarchists can't get on amicably, and does direct the reader to the conclusion that he is more concerned with derailing and trolling than addressing issues that others have with the IS tradition of political practice.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 13, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> the IS tradition of political practice.


 
Just on that topic, it does kind of depress me when people point to some of sectarian excesses of the SWP and try and attribute that to the entire left, the SWP pretty much revel in the stereotype they've created for themselves as loony trots but pretty much all the other left groups I've encountered do their best to get away from this image.

The SWP is a unique case in Britain really. Going from what I can remember reading in John Callaghan's book on trotksyism in britain, the SWP have two distinguishing features that go some way towards explaining why they're the way they are. Firstly, it's the fact they broke from the orthodox Trot theory of the Soviet Union and put forward this new-fangled "state capitalism" critque instead, putting them at odds with Trots in the American-SWP/James Cannon tradition. As a result, they were under attack right from the start from their own trot buddies, leaving them particularly isolated. Callaghan even says that the IS/SWP are the most ideologically interesting of all the trot groups in Britain, whereas a lot of those groups only paid scant regard to theory and so on the IS/SWP went too far in the other direction, being overqualified in the theory department at the expense of any substantial working class membership.

The second point is the SWP/IS were the first group of Trots to leave Gerry Healy's entryist faction within Labour "The Club" and go it alone. Whereas most of your traditional trots, Workers Revolutionary Party and Miliant/SPEW being the most significat, spent decades recruiting from within the Labour party and trade union movement, The SWP, which lacked a base in the movement, instead had to rely upon front groups, campaigns and pressure group style tactics to recruit. They also concentrated more on recruiting from the students than other groups. Cast out from the warmth of the Labour party's embrace, and disagreeing with the other trots, they were really embattled and isolated right from the very start, and they've got a political culture within the party that reflects this.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

You really do not want to rely on that book.

The IS _was_ inside the labour party and _did_ use the same recruiting methods. And the IMG and ortho-trots recruited or tried to recruit far more from students than the SWP in the 60s and 70s. The SWP were the best group for not doing that in that period. ( I could fp into the early history of the state capitalism theory and who actually held it - the ortho-trots - rather than Cliff - but that would be as boring as the rest of this thread).


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You really do not want to rely on that book.


 
Oh aye? Well cheers for giving us the heads up, owt in particular that I should know about the book or it's author before I read any more by him?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Oh aye? Well cheers for giving us the heads up, owt in particular that I should know about the book or it's author before I read any more by him?


Well - if you derived the above from it - isn't that enough? 

He simply doesn't understand what he writes about - in this book at least. His hostility to the trad left comes from some post-class position. Have you read the chapter on your party for example?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well - if you derived the above from it - isn't that enough?
> 
> He simply doesn't understand what he writes about - in this book at least. His hostility to the trad left comes from some post-class position.


 
He was one of my lecturers at salford uni, and was comparatively decent compared to some of the others at that distinguished centre of academic excellence. Mind you I remember having to referee a bad-tempered argument between him and Colin Barker once where Colin, bless him, accused him of being stalinist. He is supposedly the leading authority on the history of the CPGB I've been told. Trot history might not be his forte.

Mind you butchers, the IS _did_ break from the entryists based around Healy and co before anyone else, but I'd always thought they kept up their entyism on the sly regardless, which is something Callaghan doesn't go into and I thought was a bit suspect.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

They didn't break on the basis of entryism though - or they wouldn't have kept at it for another two decades.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 13, 2012)

treelover said:


> Not all Kirby is like that, ever heard Teardrop Explodes 'Kirby Worker Dreams Fade', or Kirby Response Theatre, a WC collective, lots of other examples of self-organisation...


I know the kirby response theatre house shared with one of the writers


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 13, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:
			
		

> Mind you butchers, the IS _did_ break from the entryists based around Healy and co before anyone else, but I'd always thought they kept up their entyism on the sly regardless, which is something Callaghan doesn't go into and I thought was a bit suspect.


 
Butchersapron is right. Callaghan is wrong.

Cliff and his followers were booted out of the Healy-led group over the Korean war. Grant and his followers were expelled immediately afterwards. Both stayed in the Labour Party for many years after this. And the Cliff group wasn't notably isolated or ostracised on the left, at that stage. It was just small and weak and lacked much capacity to have an impact, much like the predecessors of Militant.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Butchersapron is right. Callaghan is wrong.
> 
> Cliff and his followers were booted out of the Healy-led group over the Korean war. Grant and his followers were expelled immediately afterwards. Both stayed in the Labour Party for many years after this. And the Cliff group wasn't notably isolated or ostracised on the left, at that stage. It was just small and weak and lacked much capacity to have an impact, much like the predecessors of Militant.


 
Cheers for that. Just out of curiosity, did the IS as an organisation still formally promote entryism after being kicked out of the Healy group, or was it a case of them just encouraging their members to join Labour anyway? Coz reading the Callaghan history of it he makes out like they abandoned entryism formally after this split, but continued to do it anyway oustide of Healy's group in a semi-organised haphazard kind of way.

EDIT: There's also some essays by Sean Matgamma from the AWL on this period where I think he makes some similar sort of point about the SWP's political tradition.


----------



## ayatollah (Aug 13, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Just on that topic, it does kind of depress me when people point to some of sectarian excesses of the SWP and try and attribute that to the entire left, the SWP pretty much revel in the stereotype they've created for themselves as loony trots but pretty much all the other left groups I've encountered do their best to get away from this image.
> 
> The SWP is a unique case in Britain really. Going from what I can remember reading in John Callaghan's book on trotksyism in britain, the SWP have two distinguishing features that go some way towards explaining why they're the way they are. Firstly, it's the fact they broke from the orthodox Trot theory of the Soviet Union and put forward this new-fangled "state capitalism" critque instead, putting them at odds with Trots in the American-SWP/James Cannon tradition. As a result, they were under attack right from the start from their own trot buddies, leaving them particularly isolated. Callaghan even says that the IS/SWP are the most ideologically interesting of all the trot groups in Britain, whereas a lot of those groups only paid scant regard to theory and so on the IS/SWP went too far in the other direction, being overqualified in the theory department at the expense of any substantial working class membership.
> 
> The second point is the SWP/IS were the first group of Trots to leave Gerry Healy's entryist faction within Labour "The Club" and go it alone. Whereas most of your traditional trots, Workers Revolutionary Party and Miliant/SPEW being the most significat, spent decades recruiting from within the Labour party and trade union movement, The SWP, which lacked a base in the movement, instead had to rely upon front groups, campaigns and pressure group style tactics to recruit. They also concentrated more on recruiting from the students than other groups. Cast out from the warmth of the Labour party's embrace, and disagreeing with the other trots, they were really embattled and isolated right from the very start, and they've got a political culture within the party that reflects this.


 

I think this is rather a caricature of the main period of influence and (relative) success of the International Socialists/SWP, in the 1970's. When I joined the IS in 1971 it was notable for its spirit of (relative) intellectual freedom, internally, and in relation to other intellectuals . The Manchester Organiser in 1971, Glyn Carver, was a Maoist FFS ! Admittedly this may just have been a tempororary Cliff tactic, but this intellectual vigour enabled the IS to surround itself with quite a goodly range of Left writers/intellectuals, compared to the rest of the orthodox Trot Left. The IMG were in some ways equally "free'n'easy but were trapped still in the sterile wastland of "Degenerated Workers Statism" along with most of the Non CP Left -- ie, when it came to the crunch they tended to airbrush crimes by Stalinist regimes. A number of other intellectuals held to forms of a "State Capitalism" position (Raya Dunayevskaya for one), and despite its limits as a critique of "Leninism" and unpopularity with the rest of the Left, it is undoubtedly a potentially powerful/liberating political position/theory .

In the early 1970's the IS definitely wasn't just a bunch of students - after the 1968 "Turn to the Class" , which sent many a graduate into factories, the IS built up a relatively significant working class/industrial membership -- it had 38 factory branches in 1974 ! and the briefly very influential Rank & File Movement. The 1974 Labour victory and its "Social Contract" con trick demobilised the struggle yet again, so that by 1976 the IS had about 4 factory branches ! Such is the lot of revolutionery groups in what turned out NOT to be a revolutionery era.

One thing that I vividly remember from those early years was the way the relative success of IS then immediately attracted every tiny entrist sect on the Left, who caused endless disruption, before buggering off to found endless short-lived Trot sects. In my own branch- Stockport, being young and liberal in those days, we tolerated the most extraordinary disruption from cynical TRot entrists for years before getting rid. Later on I'm afraid a wiser and nastier self would simply have broken their legs on the way out the door. This may be one reason why the IS/SWP slowly became more and more "centralist" and less and less "democratic".

Today, despite the fact that the SWP is hated with a rare joy by most of the posters on Urban, and is undoubtedly a pale shadow of its former self both organisationally and in terms of intellectual "reach" and flair... my prediction is that when the World capitalist crisis really starts to bite in the UK too in a few years, the social and political turmoil this will produce will lead to the SWP, mainly because it has maintained some sort of organisation, and a vaguely recalled militant reputation in sections of the working class (oh yes it has) through the decades of Neo-Liberal dominance, AND because of its, at least on paper "anti-Stalinist" politics, and position on most issues, becoming a significant "player" again on the UK political scene. And No, I don't think it's "The Party", but it will likely be a part of that new structure/organisation, along with elements of the SP, and others.

Most of the viciously hostile anti-SWP posters on Urban are actually simply "anti-Socialist" rather than simply anti-SWP, and in the case of Butchersapron, simply intent on rubbishing the Left wholesale, whilst promoting his groups own , VERY, dubious political agenda. If you don't want to discuss the SWP, Butchers, why don't you simply fuck off this specifically SWP oriented thread ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

> Today, despite the fact that the SWP is hated with a rare joy by most of the posters on Urban, and is undoubtedly a pale shadow of its former self both organisationally and in terms of intellectual "reach" and flair... my prediction is that when the World capitalist crisis really starts to bite in the UK too in a few years, the social and political turmoil this will produce will lead to the SWP, mainly because it has maintained some sort of organisation, and a vaguely recalled militant reputation in sections of the working class (oh yes it has) through the decades of Neo-Liberal dominance, AND because of its, at least on paper "anti-Stalinist" politics, and position on most issues, becoming a significant "player" again on the UK political scene. And No, I don't think it's "The Party", but it will likely be a part of that new structure/organisation, along with elements of the SP, and others.


 
You are quite insane. If you can't even recognise what's happened and what it happening to your favoured micro-group, how on earth do you claim to understand both time and history and to lead it?

And ta once more for another attempted smear - what is it you suspect is behind my dubious agenda? Secret fascist? State? OB?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

SOCIALISM!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 13, 2012)

He thinks you're IWCA?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

He thinks everyone who isn't _rah rah socialism_ is IWCA. Given his madness above -  i can now see that's it's part of a wider thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> He thinks you're IWCA?


Ah, right get you now - he thinks the IWCA are all those things.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2012)

VERY dubious


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

Why doesn't they all just be ALL SOCIALIST ALL THE TIME?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 13, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> VERY dubious


 
BLOOD-SOAKED STALINIST.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2012)

FULL TROTSKYISM


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

FULL FAT MAOISM


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 13, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I think this is rather a caricature of the main period of influence and (relative) success of the International Socialists/SWP, in the 1970's. When I joined the IS in 1971 it was notable for its spirit of (relative) intellectual freedom, internally, and in relation to other intellectuals . The Manchester Organiser in 1971, Glyn Carver, was a Maoist FFS ! Admittedly this may just have been a tempororary Cliff tactic, but this intellectual vigour enabled the IS to surround itself with quite a goodly range of Left writers/intellectuals, compared to the rest of the orthodox Trot Left. The IMG were in some ways equally "free'n'easy but were trapped still in the sterile wastland of "Degenerated Workers Statism" along with most of the Non CP Left -- ie, when it came to the crunch they tended to airbrush crimes by Stalinist regimes. A number of other intellectuals held to forms of a "State Capitalism" position (Raya Dunayevskaya for one), and despite its limits as a critique of "Leninism" and unpopularity with the rest of the Left, it is undoubtedly a potentially powerful/liberating political position/theory .
> 
> In the early 1970's the IS definitely wasn't just a bunch of students - after the 1968 "Turn to the Class" , which sent many a graduate into factories, the IS built up a relatively significant working class/industrial membership -- it had 38 factory branches in 1974 ! and the briefly very influential Rank & File Movement. The 1974 Labour victory and its "Social Contract" con trick demobilised the struggle yet again, so that by 1976 the IS had about 4 factory branches ! Such is the lot of revolutionery groups in what turned out NOT to be a revolutionery era.
> 
> ...


 
What the hell?

1) "State capitalism" as a theory has many merits, but those merits are its consequences for the political orientation of the group concerned rather than any ability to explain anything very much about Stalinism. As far as the latter part is concerned it is less a theory of Stalinism and more an announcement that Stalinism doesn't really need to be analysed at all, just treated as if it was the same as something it patently isn't the same as. But as far as the former is concerned, it does have the important merits of working against either a tendency to prettify Stalinism or a tendency to side with capitalist states against it, approaches which _some_ advocates of more sophisticated theories (and just about every theory of Stalinism is both more sophisticated and also possessed of its own problems) have fallen into.

2) Lots of people here are anti-SWP. The most anti-SWP people tend to be ex-SWP people. Some are anti-socialists. Some are partisans of other groups. Some are just resentful of bad experiences they've had with the SWP, either from the outside or the inside. Sometimes that anti-SWP sentiment can be irrational, whether espoused by socialists or by non-socialists. But it's not driven by some IWCA conspiracy. And it isn't mostly driven by anti-socialism, as should be amply demonstrated by the range of anarchists and Trotskyists here who don't come in for the same bile.

3) The SWP wasn't substantially "entered" by other groups. The closest thing to a notable episode of entryism was the Trotskyist Tendency and they were actually invited in by Cliff who was trying to "bolshevize" the IS. The endless series of splinters thrown off by the IS/SWP in the 70s and to a lesser extent the early 80s were an internally generated phenomenon.

4) The stuff about butchersapron is just mental. He's not an anti-socialist. He's not refusing to discuss the SWP. You seem to be importing some kind of dispute from elsewhere into a thread which has quite enough odd ranting digressions already.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2012)

This is what gets me - i'm more than happy to critically, historically - politically in short - talk about and engage with the SWP or people who defend their traditions. What i think they did right and why they were in a position to do it - how i think that was driven by individuals/wider social movements and the theories they prodded them to think about, the strength of those theories, how they they stand up to scrutiny, the SWPs orientation and initiatives over the last 20 years. But we get this stuff above. It's an insult to people like bolshiebhoy.

Edit: and just for the record nige, me and Ayatollah have never crossed paths as far as i know before meeting on here. I have a sneaky suspicion he may have mistook me for a person that a common friend has talked ABOUT- i'm not convinced of that seeing how he talks to other NON-SOCIALISTS though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2012)

So ayatollah, you wanted to talk about the SWP?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 14, 2012)

here's a research project i conducted for my uni in second year, if anyone was interested...

http://www.isorigins.group.shef.ac.uk/blog/

archived internal documents, articles etc relating to the foundation of the IS

ETA - if you scroll back to the earlier posts there are also some good contributions from some members of Revolutionary History


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> here's a research project i conducted for my uni in second year, if anyone was interested...
> 
> http://www.isorigins.group.shef.ac.uk/blog/
> 
> archived internal documents, articles etc relating to the foundation of the IS


As a recent swp member uberdog, do you agree with ayatollah that the masses and the classes are about to turn to the SWP in a big regime changing way?


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> FULL TROTSKYISM




FULL ICEPICKS


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> As a recent swp member uberdog, do you agree with ayatollah that the masses and the classes are about to turn to the SWP in a big regime changing way?


obviously not, but you already knew i was an unfair example!!


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> <snip>
> 
> Edit: and just for the record nige, me and Ayatollah have never crossed paths as far as i know before meeting on here. I have a sneaky suspicion he may have mistook me for a person that a common friend has talked ABOUT- i'm not convinced of that seeing how he talks to other NON-SOCIALISTS though.



I don't know who he's talking to either, a couple of times now he's popped up saying "knowing who you are" to me which is a bit weird unless Top Cat or past caring have been giving him some kind of low down on me, which I very much doubt. Quite why anyone would give a shit about who I am anyway is


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2012)

for someone who knows who you are you'd think he'd at least get the gender right


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> for someone who knows who you are you'd think he'd at least get the gender right




Aye.

E2A: 'twas only that, that made me think that he's just being a bit of a daft sod till he finds his feet, rather than some kind of weird hardman stalker type.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 14, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't know who he's talking to either, a couple of times now he's popped up saying "knowing who you are" to me which is a bit weird unless Top Cat or past caring have been giving him some kind of low down on me, which I very much doubt. Quite why anyone would give a shit about who I am anyway is


 
I know who you are


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know who you are



I know who you are too


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 14, 2012)

spooky


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> for someone who knows who you are you'd think he'd at least get the gender right


 
Ah, he might have made a mistake because Ches obviously wears the Farahs out of her and the button.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know who you are


 


cesare said:


> I know who you are too


 
I know who you two are too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> spooky


 
Is that camouflage waiting at the gloryhole?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 14, 2012)

Random said:


> After about a decade of a few people going round in circles, exactly what are we working towards, with this discussion?


Well it is not a topic I am going to raise on a regular basis is it?


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, he might have made a mistake because Ches obviously wears the Farahs out of her and the button.



Interchangeable DMs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2012)

cesare said:


> Interchangeable DMs


 
Now I'm wondering whether you've got large feet, or whether the button's are unnaturally-small!


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now I'm wondering whether you've got large feet, or whether the button's are unnaturally-small!




Socks in the toe caps


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> > october_lost said:
> > I am talking about Britain and to some extent the inherent Islamophilia of the SWP in the larger world.
> 
> 
> ...


in my opinion, violent panda observes correctly, but interprets wrongly.

I think Panda is quite right, given the correct circumstances, the association would be dropped like a hot potato.  That begs the question, what are the correct circumstances for entering into such an association, and falling out of them?

My first question to you October would be, if we shouldn't work with Muslims because of anti-Semitism, should we work with Jews considering their track record in Israel? [I am not saying you are branding all Muslims anti-Semites, and I am not branding all Jews supporters of Israel and anti-Islam.]and what about groups such as miners in the 70s 'renowned' for their sexism, homophobia etc?  The general point I'm trying to make is that rightly or wrongly, the SWP argue that you shouldn't create some kind of checklist, that people have to measure up to before you work with them.  Hence the now infamous remark, upon these boards, by Lindsey German "gay rights are not a shibboleth".

the determinate of entering into falling out of association with such groups, is there relationship to the class struggle.  For example Tony Cliff is well known for saying, "when you are on the picket line you don't refuse to link arms with the racist.".

For obvious reasons Muslims have been motivated to be active at the sharp end of politics over the last decade.  This, not any reason of self-interest as Panda believes, is the reason for Association with them.

such groups,Muslims, are not homogenous.  I think Trotsky's analogy of the work place with the fascist on one side, the Socialist on the other side, and the vast majority in the middle, looking to both fascism and socialism as a solution, is also applicable to such Muslim groups. The whole point of being involved with such groups,is to provide a working-class alternative to the reactionary groups.  But unfortunately you are going to get in close proximity with people you would rather not be close proximity with.  When you dance with the Devil, you get pricked by his horns.  

I'm sure violent panda would never rule out working with Muslims.  Where do you draw the line working with unsavoury people?  Obviously it's a judgement call.


----------



## dennisr (Aug 14, 2012)

*yawns*


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 14, 2012)

dennisr said:


> *yawns*


I know, conspiracy theories are so much more exciting.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2012)

Wow, October lost said 'we' should not work with Muslims did he?


----------



## audiotech (Aug 21, 2012)

Fascinating.

"Nothing to be gained from pessimism..."


----------

