# SWP Expel leading members in Respect



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 14, 2007)

Breaking news ...

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=824

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 14, 2007)

So Rob Hoveman and Kevin Ovenden have been expelled - they must have at least 50 years membership of the SWP between them - together with key figure inside Respect National Council, Nick Wrack, who is a former leading figure in Militant.  Bristol member Jerry Hicks must also be next on the hit list if he continues to support Nick Wrack's candidature for National Organiser.

"Crisis, what crisis?"  will no doubt be the non-story in this week's Socialist Worker.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 14, 2007)

What exciting times we live in.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Oct 14, 2007)

_Waiting for "Dispatches" to do an investigation into the SWP just so that we all have an idea of who runs them and how they work._​


----------



## junius (Oct 14, 2007)

John Rees will stop at nothing, it seems, to con SWP members that the Respect disaster was nothing to do with him.


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 14, 2007)

Who gives a damn?  SWP members are conned from the moment they join.  Bunch of Leninist sheep.  Marx said that the emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the working-class itself.  Which is why the only Marxist political party in existence is thoroughly democratic and has no leaders.

I've had a hard day at work, and I'm in the mood for some SWP-bashing.  Somebody gainsay me now!!


----------



## audiotech (Oct 14, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> Which is why the only Marxist political party in existence is thoroughly democratic and has no leaders.



Which Marxist political party is that then?


----------



## JHE (Oct 14, 2007)

Extraordinary news!

Given that relations have become strained between GG and the Social Workers, I wouldn't have been especially surprised if GG had tried to get rid of the Social Workers he employs.  That would have been a nasty little dispute.

Instead, we have the Social Working Top Brass insisting on resignations from GG's employment and expulsions when their two office bods for GG refuse to become voluntarily unemployed.

FFS, if the Social Workers were even half-competent factionalists, they would think it an _advantage_ to have a couple of spies in GG's office!

There's something about Trot 'democratic centralism' that drives Trot bosses absolutely bonkers!


----------



## JHE (Oct 14, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Which Marxist political party is that then?



You've managed to get to your advanced age without learning to recognise SPGB-speak?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 14, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> You've managed to get to your advanced age without learning to recognise SPGB-speak?



Is the poster a leader of that organisation then? 

Less of the advanced.


----------



## JHE (Oct 14, 2007)

Unadvanced?

~~~~


Anyway, where are the Social Workers to comment on this latest development in 'the party'?

Dhimmi Dog, Udo Erasure, nwnwnwn and others, what have you got to say about all this?  Now that Ramadam-a-dingdong is over, you have regained the strength to comment, I hope.


----------



## Barry Kade (Oct 15, 2007)

This whole crisis in Respect is bizarre. The SWP leaders are behaving like someone on a self-destructive binge. First they suck up to Galloway and call anybody who opposes an alliance with Muslim community activists 'Islamophobes'. Then suddenly, they turn around and call Galloway and the Muslims in Respect 'communalists'. Now they are expelling their long term members who wont follow this latest twist.

This confirms to me that if we are to rebuild the left, this can only be done with a democratic, inclusive  and participatory political culture. Which means a break from the traditions of far left cults and control freakery that they pretend is 'democratic centralism'.

All very sad - cos if Respect and/or the SWP implode I doubt if we will get a new  democratic and participatory left - just more twisted fragments. Ho hum.
As a former SWP member for 13 years, I'm glad I'm well away from them now!

I am inspired, 'though, by the new moves towards an ecosocialist international. But that's another thread.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 15, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> You've managed to get to your advanced age without learning to recognise SPGB-speak?



Erm, well I was a longstanding member of the SPGB (and now a member of the WSPUS), and it took me a while to spot the _'speak'_.  

I must be slipping.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 15, 2007)

I have quite a soft spot for the SPGB, even if their antics outside the @ bookfair are slightly mental 

As for the SWP, does anybody have a clue what they think they're playing at


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 15, 2007)

Is Nick Wrack any relation to the FBY General Secretary?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 15, 2007)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Is Nick Wrack any relation to the FBY General Secretary?



they are brothers. they don't get on very well though (coming to blows a while ago). personally I have a lot of time for matt, none for nick


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 15, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Unadvanced?
> 
> ~~~~
> 
> ...



I haven't been a member of the SWP for around a year.
The expulsion of Kevin Ovenden (if true) is pretty extraordinary, I remember him speaking at my first new members day school and his Malcolm X book being a standard text for members learning about racism.
Disappointing to hear this, the SWP has many positive features and I don't regret the time I was a member of the organisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

This is the list of people now lined up head on against the SWP by virtue of supporting Wrack: 

Linda Smith - Chair National Respect 
Salma Yaqoob - Vice Chair National Respect 
George Galloway - MP 
Abdul Khaliq Mian - Newham Respect 
Glynn Robbins - Vice Chair Tower Hamlets Respect 
Ken Loach - Respect National Council 
Yvonne Ridley - Respect National Council 
Jerry Hicks - Bristol Respect 
Victoria Brittain - Respect National Council 
Abdurahman Jafar - Muslim Council Britain 
Alan Thornett - South London Respect 
Mobeen Azhar - Manchester Respect 
Abjol Miah - Leader of Tower Hamlets Group of Councillors 
Salvinder Dhillon - West London Respect 
John Lister - Respect National Council 
Paddy O’Keefe - Brighton Respect 
Berny Parkes - Dorset Respect 
Ger Francis - Birmingham Respect 
Rita Carter - Lewisham Respect 
Ayesha Bajwa - Vice Chair Tower Hamlets Respect 

**** 

Looks like they've lost Tower Hamlets.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> they are brothers. they don't get on very well though (coming to blows a while ago). personally I have a lot of time for matt, none for nick



Death to apostates!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 15, 2007)

Curiously Kevin was my main reason for leaving the party twenty years ago.

I've known Rob for even longer than that.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Curiously Kevin was my main reason for leaving the party twenty years ago.



why so?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 15, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Death to apostates!



 actually, I really meant personally (both would - formally - be apostates)

matt had always come across as a genuine, decent fella whatever my political differences with him. he does have big differences with the SP as to how one organises in trade unions. he remains a good trade unionist 

nick had always come across as a bit of a political hack. his original move to the swp was quite, quite weird given his 'hardline' intransigence, previous to this, to anything not following the old 'party line' he then supported (pretty uncritically - to the extent that he seemed to behave like a bit of an arsehole when others were not showing enough of what he seemed to consider as 'loyalty'). it just an opinion though - and i haven't really seen or known him for a few years, so the fella could well have changed.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 15, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> why so?


He pissed me off.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

Not to mntion keeping his membership secret whilst serving on various comttees as well. I suppose now he's found out from the other end how they operate.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 15, 2007)

Interesting stuff! The Weekly Worker will be creaming their pants over this. Anyone reckon Hoveman, Wrack, and Ovenden might form their own socialist group?


----------



## glenquagmire (Oct 15, 2007)

I do hope so. There aren't enough small left wing groups in Britain these days.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> Curiously Kevin was my main reason for leaving the party twenty years ago.



Why , edited to add why did he piss you off?



> actually, I really meant personally (both would - formally - be apostates)



Not in equal measures though. Surely going from the SP to the SWP is the ultimate sin


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 15, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Why


Have I not already answered that?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> Have I not already answered that?



I was asking why he pissed you off....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm not sure that the detail of twenty-year-old quarrels isn't fairly deep into the territory of SWP-obsession.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

Don't you think it's vital to the future of the human race?


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 15, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Don't you think it's vital to the future of the human race?



To be fair if it can survive the Worker's Power split it can survive anything.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

Very true, very true.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> He pissed me off.



It would be hard to be in a party where no-one ever pisses you off sometime!


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 15, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff! The Weekly Worker will be creaming their pants over this. Anyone reckon Hoveman, Wrack, and Ovenden might form their own socialist group?



If they did, the masses would be rushing to recieve their guidance. These guys are 'high profile' figures on the left after all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Victoria Brittain - Respect National Council
> Mobeen Azhar - Manchester Respect
> Paddy O’Keefe - Brighton Respect
> Berny Parkes - Dorset Respect
> ...



Does anyone know anything about the politics and background of these people? Is it a surprise that they have lined up behind Wrack?

Of the names I recognise, the most interesting are Jerry Hicks and Linda Smith. Smith has been associated with a range of SWP projects over the years, though I have no idea if she is or was actually a member. Hicks is a longstanding SWP member, and a relatively high profile one. I wonder will he be next out the door?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 15, 2007)

Some time back on these boards, I'm sure I can remember a discussion on whether RESPECT would ultimately prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the SWP. I'm fairly sure someone or other (can't remember who, or if they even still use these boards) reckoned that the SWP still had one last major fuckup to go through before the end came - although nobody could predict just what it'd be. 

I'm starting to wonder if that's what's happening now.


----------



## tbaldwin (Oct 15, 2007)

It does seem like this could be the thing that really does for the SWP as any kind of significant left force in the UK.
But sadly the top down approach to left wing politics they represent is still likely to be the dominant force to the left of Labour.


----------



## grogwilton (Oct 15, 2007)

Id be amazed if they expel Hicks. if Hicks got expelled, I'd leave, and I suspect so would most of Bristol which is actually a really good branch, for the SWp, Respect and StW.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

How long have you been in the SWP grogwilton?


----------



## grogwilton (Oct 15, 2007)

Let me think. Must thave been around the time of the first biggish stw demo so around late 2002. That makes it 5 years in my book. Im 22. But im not in Bristol, just have friends who are in the party there.


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 15, 2007)

Wouldn't they need to be socialists to do that?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 15, 2007)

The sad thing (and it speaks volumes about the left's failure to be a force in British politics) is that the SWP was the closest thing the UK had to a far-left success story. 

There was a time in the late 80s - early 90s when I really did get the impression of a growing movement that had potential and was going places. Looking back, I now realise a lot of that was just down to my own youthfull idealism, but it really did not seem to be _quite _so much the bizarre outfit it is today. 

I think it finally started to go completely off the rails when Blair rose to prominance inthe Labour Party and the SWP completey failed to understand nature of this phenomenon and what it represented (IE, the total death-knell of leftwing or working class politics in the UK and the rise of a new yuppie-class of "proffessionals" whom they seemed to mistake as being part of the working class).

Now, the party that had the excellent slogan "neither washington nor moscow but international socialism" and told _both_ dominant ideologies of the time (capitalism and stalinism) to get stuffed is reduced to pathetically trailing around bleating it's support for Islamist movements accross the world.

Sad. Truley sad.


----------



## greenfield (Oct 15, 2007)

I think it is sad, in a way. I remember when I was in the SWP they thought that very soon in the first term of a New Labour government there would be a 'crisis of expectations' that would give rise to a new birth of Trade Union struggle. Other Left groups thought this too, I think? You're right Poster, all that happened is that w/c politics died a death. w/c as a serious political force has gone in the UK. And no, I don't think the postal strike proves anything different.

 

As a completely irrelevant gossipy asside, I keep seeing Julie Waterson in my after-work local looking much happier and less scary drinking with lots of new mates from whereever she works. I know she left the CC some time ago, did she also take a break from the SWP?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 15, 2007)

Kevin Ovenden's quite a good chessplayer as it happens. Could possibly return to the game as did Sue Caldwell...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 15, 2007)

greenfield said:
			
		

> I remember when I was in the SWP they thought that very soon in the first term of a New Labour government there would be a 'crisis of expectations' that would give rise to a new birth of Trade Union struggle. Other Left groups thought this too, I think?


It was at this point that I began to realise they'd lost the plot and had seemingly detached from reality. I remember all too well that it was the emerging layer of new managerialist bullies in the workplace (young, new promotees on one hand and graduate-entry types on the other) who were singing Blair's praises, and not the working classes. There were those of us who never for one moment thought there's _be_ a "crises of expectations" - because the types of people who voted Blair in would be (and were and largely are) only too happy with what he was doing. There simply _were_ no expecations of the sort the SWP was hoping for.





			
				greenfield said:
			
		

> all that happened is that w/c politics died a death. w/c as a serious political force has gone in the UK. And no, I don't think the postal strike proves anything different.


Sadly, I also agree on this. The current little flurry of various strikes we're seeing (which will most likely just be ignored and end in no conclusive result for the workers if not outright defeat) look more like a last, ineffectual gasp rather than a springboard to a return to strength.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 15, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Kevin Ovenden's quite a good chessplayer as it happens. Could possibly return to the game as did Sue Caldwell...



Sue Caldwell,  recognise that name.  She was one tough cookie and nearly turned over a van I was in on the way to a demo in Liverpool.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> Socialist Workers Party/Respect: now the bloodletting begins
> 
> Several leading members of the SWP in Respect have been expelled by the SWP leadership. This will only be the start of the purge argues Stuart King.
> 
> ...



http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1726


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> I remember when I was in the SWP they thought that very soon in the first term of a New Labour government there would be a 'crisis of expectations' that would give rise to a new birth of Trade Union struggle. Other Left groups thought this too, I think?



I know mk12 and others always criticise Permanent Revolution for talking about the economy a lot but I'd say this is all wrapped up in the far left (virtually all of it in the UK) totally misreading the period we're in. For instance the SWP, SP, WP etc all have said that the recent credit cruch crisis representing a crisis in capitalism. One article on this here:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1722

But the fact is that the collapse of the stalinist states, on the back of the massive defeats of the 1980s gave capitalism a double boost. Firstly massive markets to go into all ready with free productive transport networks and a very cheap disorganised labour force and secondly defeated labour movements in imperialist countries like the UK and US. This doesn't mean the end of struggle, it means that capitalism has bought itself some time, but the markets in places like China and India won't be unending, at some point profit rates, like in the 1980s, will start to fall again.

But there is no serious analysis of this, apparently according to people like Harman in the SWP we're still in a full blown capitalist crisis and the SP say "it is clear from recent events that the global economy has entered a new period of crisis".

Well if you think we're in that kinda crisis then you would have expected massive struggles during Blair's term and Brown's term. In turn it leads to ever more desperation when that doesn't happen. But we're not in a period of crisis and socialists shouldn't be expecting massive upturns in class struggle.

That reality check doesn't mean going into pessimism like posterxxx (sorry but you are all doom and gloom) it just means that we're not in fall blown capitalist crisis and massive class struggle.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> As a completely irrelevant gossipy asside, I keep seeing Julie Waterson in my after-work local looking much happier and less scary drinking with lots of new mates from whereever she works. I know she left the CC some time ago, did she also take a break from the SWP?



Nope she was at marxism this year being as grumpy and rude as ever.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 15, 2007)

I nearly killed Julie Waterson once


----------



## greenfield (Oct 15, 2007)

Awww, poor Julie. I thought she'd fast-tracked herself to a world of normality.

Who needs a hug?

{{{{{{Julie}}}}}}


----------



## Loupylou (Oct 15, 2007)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> It does seem like this could be the thing that really does for the SWP as any kind of significant left force in the UK.




Other than the fact they're a bunch of wankers.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 15, 2007)

Dear, dear.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 15, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Nope she was at marxism this year being as grumpy and rude as ever.



She works for the lecturers union - politcally we don't get on at all, but I've found her to be quite personable


----------



## greenfield (Oct 15, 2007)

I suppose only her 'comrades' would put up with her screaming and shouting swearwords into their faces.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> She works for the lecturers union - politcally we don't get on at all, but I've found her to be quite personable



  

At marxism she went over and took someones chair, when they objected she turned around and said "that's socialism" with scowl on her face. She wasn't too personable that day


----------



## dennisr (Oct 15, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> She wasn't too personable that day



 you should have tried any form of attempted anti-fash work with her at any point in the past - yep, she has a bit of a reputation. 

I keep the political differences at a distinct distance - hence the personable bit


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 15, 2007)

Just by way of a bit of education for those whose knowledge of socialism is confined to what they've been told by the leaders of left-wing, pro-capitalist parties, the class-struggle is not something that erupts from time to time, when capitalism is going through one of it's periodic slumps, but rather it is part and parcel of everyday life for a member of the working-class under capitalism.  The SWP's notion of what constitutes class struggle is nothing less than a pile of romanticist hogwash where a 'revolutionary elite' sends hapless dupes to die on the barricades.

Class struggle is the necessary antagonism between those who work for wages and those who own and control the means of production.  Happens every working moment of every working day.

Hilariously enough, I've heard members of the SWP upbraid those who have an accurate analysis of capitalism for not getting involved in the class struggle, when for the SWP the class struggle is just an outmoded desire for pointless and impotent violence against the state.

Somebody recently referred to the SWP as 'wankers'.  Hear hear!


----------



## mk12 (Oct 15, 2007)

> Class struggle is the necessary antagonism between those who work for wages and those who own and control the means of production. *Happens every working moment of every working day.*



 Good point.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 15, 2007)

Julie is actually quite nice just in her own somewhat unique way. She was on the CC when I was a member and was by far the most likable one I ever had contact with. Dave Hayes (whatever happened to him is he still on the CC?) came across ok but I never had any direct contact with him. Callinicos is by far the grumpiest. 

Back on topic, I heard that Kevin Ovenden had been sent to work for Galloway to keep an eye on him after his BB adventure. That turned out well.
There is some speculation about the SWP splitting from Respect I think it is really hard to predict what will happen as the situation is still very fluid and there are obviously still quite a few cards left to be played so I doubt anyone has any plans yet. But here is my prediction based on the current situation I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow of course.

The SWP cannot just up and leave Respect they have invested far too much into it leaving now would tear them apart (although given what has just happened it seems the Central committee is pretty stupid and/or even more detached from reality than I thought previously) more likely there will be a gradual lessening of the emphasis on Respect. It will get less coverage than it used to the push will be towards more SWP or STWC meetings than Respect ones. I also expect there to be more of an educational push within the SWP. Some people will no doubt be of the view that the level of Marxist education in the SWP has always been crap but I feel that compared to when I joined 9 (shit 9!!) years ago the importance of education has dropped off considerably and what education there is often seems to be (rather understandably) focused on Imperialism and the middle east. This is part of the reason why it is hard for the SWP to simple leave Respect many of its new members are really just the left wing on the anti-war movement not ‘real’ trots and there is a danger that the party could not hold on to them without ‘hardening’ them up a bit first. All this will be setting the stage for the party’s eventual complete withdrawal in a few years time as without the full backing of the SWP Respect is unlikely too much of a force by then. Of course, if Respect does grow legs of its own the situation will become more complex for the SWP leadership.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> Class struggle is the necessary antagonism between those who work for wages and those who own and control the means of production. Happens every working moment of every working day.



This is of course true. But I don't think you'd deny that class struggle goes through peaks and troughs, it's not just one even line. And you're right that even outside times of crisis there can be massive amounts of class struggle (look at the 1960s) but the point is that the economy is a very important factor. And we're hardly in times of mass class struggle - strike figures, for instance, are at an historic low.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 15, 2007)

But his point was: "it happens every working moment of every working day."


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

Yeah true, but that's kinda stating the obvious.

I thought it was in relation to talking about how economics effects class struggle, if not, then fair enough.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 15, 2007)

I just thought he/she had already answered your question:



> But I don't think you'd deny that class struggle goes through peaks and troughs, it's not just one even line. And you're right that even outside times of crisis there can be massive amounts of class struggle (look at the 1960s) but the point is that the economy is a very important factor. And we're hardly in times of mass class struggle - strike figures, for instance, are at an historic low.






> "the class-struggle is not something that erupts from time to time, when capitalism is going through one of it's periodic slumps, but rather it is part and parcel of everyday life for a member of the working-class under capitalism."


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

Not really. He is saying that class struggle happens every moment of every day. I'm saying, yeah it does (although saying that is stating the obvious) but it goes through peaks and troughs i.e. sometimes is more intense than others.

Unless you think it's one unending line of constant struggle that neither gets more intense or lessens off. But if someone thinks that, to be blunt, they'd have to be on another planet.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 15, 2007)

The class struggle certainly manifests itself in different ways at different times for different reasons.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 15, 2007)

Marx said:
			
		

> Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on *an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight*



Nuff said


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> The class struggle certainly manifests itself in different ways at different times for different reasons.



You should do a philisophical quotes book


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 15, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> There is some speculation about the SWP splitting from Respect I think it is really hard to predict what will happen as the situation is still very fluid and there are obviously still quite a few cards left to be played so I doubt anyone has any plans yet.



It's the same old story - if they can't control it, they will destory it. So Respect will hit the ground before the SWP are prepared to walk away from it. The SWP won't just up and leave.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 15, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> You should do a philisophical quotes book


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight



Well that's exactly the point. No-one is saying the oppression isn't constant and for that matter the resistance as well. But the "now hidden, now open" bit is reflecting, I think anyway, what I'm saying about peaks and troughs of class struggle.

For instance strikes are, in my view, a crucial part of class struggle. In the 1970s a 10 million work days a year were lost to strike action. In 2005 it was 150,000.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 15, 2007)

Yep - there's many reasons why it's lower these days. But resistance continues, even in tiny ways. Remember, the longest journey begins with the first step.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 15, 2007)

Cockney, I agree with you entirely, I just happen to think Uncle Karl said it first and said it better. No offense


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 15, 2007)

> Cockney, I agree with you entirely, I just happen to think Uncle Karl said it first and said it better. No offense



No offense taken. I often talk bollox, and I know it   



> Yep - there's many reasons why it's lower these days. But resistance continues, even in tiny ways. Remember, the longest journey begins with the first step.



I'm noting these beauties down. I reckon in a few years you could have people waving mk12's little red book in the air at demos.

I've often heard something about little acorns when people mentioned you but thought that might be a bit personal


----------



## audiotech (Oct 15, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> Just by way of a bit of education for those whose knowledge of socialism is confined to what they've been told by the leaders of left-wing, pro-capitalist parties, the class-struggle is not something that erupts from time to time, when capitalism is going through one of it's periodic slumps, but rather it is part and parcel of everyday life for a member of the working-class under capitalism.  The SWP's notion of what constitutes class struggle is nothing less than a pile of romanticist hogwash where a 'revolutionary elite' sends hapless dupes to die on the barricades.
> 
> Class struggle is the necessary antagonism between those who work for wages and those who own and control the means of production.  Happens every working moment of every working day.
> 
> ...



Grow up, or durutti will pull you up.  

The antagonisms that develop involves forces that can favour, or hinder the class struggle. Nothing romanticised about that. Lenin would scoff at the notion.  

As for 'pointless and impotent violence against the state'? I thought that was normally the realm of nihilists with an anarchist bent?


----------



## fanciful (Oct 15, 2007)

Just to comment on the options for the SWP and Respect its a bit late to say they can't just up and leave. What else are they going to do?!
it looks like they'll lose their majority on the NC, in which case they've lost their organisational control of the party. It's quite possible they could lose at the national conference in November. But even if they win, the GG and co can just up and leave.
I don't think it acutally matters much who wins, either way they can't stay with each other.
Will it be bloody for the SWP? Absolutely. Their base is very weak, the new ones are hardly socialists even in my experience, they joined Respect student society, I'd say it was iffy if the SWP will take many of them with them, particularly now that they're split at the national level.
It'll have big ramifications for whatever's left as well, as its clearly Rees baby and its been a disaster. But its not like they can turn to any other really vibrant campaigns as an alternative either.
It's not like the 1970s. Either way the options are really poor for the leadership.


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 15, 2007)

Considering the months of haggling and the end being not the death of Respect but a useful way forward (as per the latest from the Respect National Council), I find the behaviour of the SWP bizarre.

No general election, so time to organise and make broader links with others stabilise and move forward. Not the time to throw all your toys out of the pram.

These expulsions say more about getting more control in the SWP than it does about the way forward for Respect.

Yes the CPGB will be creaming themselves but they have always wanted to destroy the Respect project.

You can not make a good omelette without breaking eggs - Respect well may be better out of this.


----------



## chilango (Oct 15, 2007)

Nevermind the SWP...what will happen to Respect?

Will the absence of the SWps allow it the freedom to become some kinda broad based left populist movement?

will it totally become an Islamophile communitarian party?

or will it dissappear to Galloway's portuguse holiday home come next election?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

It'll sell it's arse to labour or lib-dems in a few years.


----------



## chilango (Oct 15, 2007)

How so? (and for how much!)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

A few council seats and favourable contract allocation.


----------



## chilango (Oct 15, 2007)

ain't that (or absence of) why half of em left in the 1st place?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2007)

Why they left the lib-dems and labour? Yep. Bingo!


----------



## chilango (Oct 15, 2007)

Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Grow up, or durutti will pull you up.
> 
> The antagonisms that develop involves forces that can favour, or hinder the class struggle. Nothing romanticised about that. Lenin would scoff at the notion.
> 
> As for 'pointless and impotent violence against the state'? I thought that was normally the realm of nihilists with an anarchist bent?



Lenin scoffed at the notion of workers being able to understand the case for socialism as well, which was but one example of the contempt in which he held members of the working-class.  

Durutti?  Who the hell is Durutti, then?  He's going to pull me up for attacking a bunch of confused, elitist, vanguardist, Leninist sheep?  You can feel me quaking, can't you?

Look.  Socialism can only come about when we have a majority of people who understand the case for socialism and consciously opt for it.  You can't force socialism on people, and this idea that some cataclysmic eruption of the class struggle will suddenly make otherwise apolitical workers wake up and follow the revolutionary elite is a)nonsensical, and b) dangerous.

It's nonsensical because people, historically, just don't respond that way, and this messianic socialism is mythological in the extreme, and it's dangerous because, as we've seen, when political power is seized that way there's a lot of bloodshed and repression needed which leads to so-called revolutionaries becoming monsters.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

I think you'll find it was firstly Marx who considered certain sections of society (namely the peasantry) unable to comprehend the ideas of Socialism -but then again, for a supposedly 'Marxist' organisation you SpeeGees do hilariously fail to understand any of what he says.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I think you'll find it was firstly Marx who considered certain sections of society (namely the peasantry) unable to comprehend the ideas of Socialism -but then again, for a supposedly 'Marxist' organisation you SpeeGees do hilariously fail to understand any of what he says.



Is this the first post by an SWP member on this thread?  

Would you like to provide a comment on the main topic?  A "Supposedly 'Marxist' organisation" does not hide from others the fact that it has expelled members.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

All I'm willing to say at this point is that I completely disagree with the leadership in this dispute - but that is only from what I've seen so far.


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I think you'll find it was firstly Marx who considered certain sections of society (namely the peasantry) unable to comprehend the ideas of Socialism -but then again, for a supposedly 'Marxist' organisation you SpeeGees do hilariously fail to understand any of what he says.



It's abundantly clear from what you've written that it is, in fact, you that has failed to grasp what Marx said on this subject, and that your incomprehension also extends to what Lenin said.  "Capitalism", said Marx, "creates its own gravediggers."  By which he meant the working-class.  What he's saying is that the conditions that workers experience under capitalism are what create socialists.  Why would the peasantry, who Marx suggested needed to liberated from 'the idiocy of rural life', have an interest in socialism?  

Now, Lenin makes it very clear, and I think it was in 'State and Revolution', that he thinks the working-class, (which, incidentally, constituted a very small percentage of the population in Russia in 1917, a fact which immediately precludes the possibility of socialist revolution) cannot comprehend the case for socialism.  He argues that workers are only capable of achieving trade-union consciousness, and that if you want workers to understand socialism then you will wait '500 years.'

Now that's a direct contradiction of Marx's position, which is that 'the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.'

You see, and this is the source of your confusion, Marx's ideas are fundamentally at odds with Lenin's.  The SWP is a Leninist outfit, and logically, cannot be Marxist as well.  Unless you think that being a christian atheist is a viable position to adopt.  Which, come to think of it, since you're defending the SWP here, you probably do.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

Unlike many on these boards, I think the SWP has many positive features, but this kind of puffed up self-important leadership who can only deal with disagreements within the organisation through expulsions is childish and unhealthy if we want to build a long lasting revolutionary party. I mean would the SWP cease to function effectively if Kevin Ovenden continued to be a member and worked in GGs office? Would this really harm building a revolutionary party in the UK?

Many people criticise Democratic Centralism on the basis that it was specific to the conditions that the Bolsheviks operated in, under a police state and not appropriate to a modern western democracy

This may be true, but the SWPs version is actually more authoritarian than the bolsheviks! For example, pre-1918ish minority currents in the bolsheviks were given representation on the CC in proportion to their support in the wider party. There is no regular internal bulletin for members to debate ideas or disagree with the leadership.  If you read accounts of the Bolsheviks you see numerous examples of members openly disagreeing with the leaders and even of the leaders disagreeing. 

I just can't see eye-to-eye with the conception of people like Chris Harman (whose theoretical work I have great respect for) that the party has to be monolithic with one homogenous leadership - life is just not so simple!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> All I'm willing to say at this point is that I completely disagree with the leadership in this dispute - but that is only from what I've seen so far.



Your days are also numbered then.

 Rob Hoveman was in the SWP for longer than you've been on the earth, btw.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> It's abundantly clear from what you've written that it is, in fact, you that has failed to grasp what Marx said on this subject, and that your incomprehension also extends to what Lenin said.  "Capitalism", said Marx, "creates its own gravediggers."  By which he meant the working-class.  What he's saying is that the conditions that workers experience under capitalism are what create socialists.  Why would the peasantry, who Marx suggested needed to liberated from 'the idiocy of rural life', have an interest in socialism?
> 
> Now, Lenin makes it very clear, and I think it was in 'State and Revolution', that he thinks the working-class, (which, incidentally, constituted a very small percentage of the population in Russia in 1917, a fact which immediately precludes the possibility of socialist revolution) cannot comprehend the case for socialism.  He argues that workers are only capable of achieving trade-union consciousness, and that if you want workers to understand socialism then you will wait '500 years.'
> 
> ...



And you're surprised your son hates you? You'd be fucking annoying if you weren't such a loony.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> There is no regular internal bulletin for members to debate ideas or disagree with the leadership.



Party Notes...?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

You've very obviously never seen a proper internal bulletin. If you think a summary of the CC's rambling discussions and top-down diktats constitutes an internal organ of debate and discussion.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

All you need is a summary of Party events, it's at least written very neutrally the vast majority of the time.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Party Notes...?



With due respect, Party Notes is a brief documment authored by the National Organiser while it does have feedback from different branches and aims to give a snapshot of SWP activity around the country it's not a document of internal debate. It is quite useful, as it goes. I have no problem with party notes.

Of course, I'm aware that the SWP has more internal debate and clash of ideas than the average anarchist outfit or bourgeois party and that there are branch meetings etc. where debates can be had and members can even air disagreement with the CC.

But the SWP only has an internal bulletin in the run-up period to conference.  Generally debates come up in the movement more than in the three months prededing conference.

Isn't it incredbile that their has been a sharp debate over Respect but there has been no special SWP bulletin where different perspectives can be thrashed out.

Or that there's a massive clash between different leaders of Respect - yet many members of Respect are completely in the dark about this debate.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> All you need is a summary of Party events, it's at least written very neutrally the vast majority of the time.



I was thinking of something along the lines of the pre-conference bulletin but published on a more regular basis.

Also the point is not that the SWP leadership have made a bad _individual _decison in this instance, but that this flows organically from their conception of democratic centralism and the idea that disagreement with the leadership cannot be tolerated within the revolutionary party (a position not held by the Bolsheviks), I agree with many of the fundamental ideas of the International Socialist tradition, I have great respect for the theoretical and practical ability of many of the leaders of the SWP but the need for a more relaxed internal regime is pressing.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

There you have it ladies and gentlemen "All you need is a summary of Party events" - you don't need any input or debate from ordinary members, you don't need any issues talked out, you don't need new perspetives challenged, _you don't need the members thinking for themselves_ - "All you need is a summary of Party events".


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> There you have it ladies and gentlemen "All you need is a summary of Party events" - you don't need any input or debate from ordinary members, you don't need any issues talked out, you don't need new perspetives challenged, _you don't need the members thinking for themselves_ - "All you need is a summary of Party events".



This is a bit of a caricature, when I was a member of the SWP their was quite often vigorous debate


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> And you're surprised your son hates you? You'd be fucking annoying if you weren't such a loony.



It's much more dignified to just admit defeat, you know?  First of all, I have never expressed surprise that my son hates me, because he doesn't.  We just happen to disagree on whether or not he should become a pig.  Actually, if it came to it, I'd sooner he became a pig than a member of the SWP.  Now that would really rankle!

Secondly, ad hominem attacks are a hallmark of left-wing sects.  Saves you from thinking, I suppose, and then needing painkillers to relieve the headache it's given you.  I've just posted a well-argued attack on the SWP.  Your response?  I'm a loony.  Pathetic.  Time to open your mouth and change feet, methinks.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Different POV are raised - just not discussed in notes. It should really be down to the branches to further the discussion in branch meetings - and that does often happen. Where it doesn't is down to a weakness on behalf of the SWPs branch structure and nothing intrinsically wrong with Party notes.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> there are branch meetings etc. where debates can be had and *members can even air disagreement with the CC*.


How often does this happen and how long do they last afterwards?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> This is a bit of a caricature, when I was a member of the SWP their was quite often vigorous debate




Not in Party Notes there wasn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Different POV are raised - just not discussed in notes. It should really be down to the branches to further the discussion in branch meetings - and that does often happen. Where it doesn't is down to a weakness on behalf of the SWPs branch structure and nothing intrinsically wrong with Party notes.



So Party Notes isn't the place for discussion and debate that udo called for and that you said it was.

I note your argument has moved into there being no need for an internal bulletin that fosters and publishes debate and discussion.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> It's much more dignified to just admit defeat, you know?  First of all, I have never expressed surprise that my son hates me, because he doesn't.  We just happen to disagree on whether or not he should become a pig.  Actually, if it came to it, I'd sooner he became a pig than a member of the SWP.  Now that would really rankle!
> 
> Secondly, ad hominem attacks are a hallmark of left-wing sects.  Saves you from thinking, I suppose, and then needing painkillers to relieve the headache it's given you.  I've just posted a well-argued attack on the SWP.  Your response?  I'm a loony.  Pathetic.  Time to open your mouth and change feet, methinks.



If it weren't so funny that you think you've outsmarted me with your frankly entirely incoherant and piecemeal "analysis" of Lenin and 'State and Revolution', I'd be annoyed. Do you actually want me to seriously respond? Because if I do - I promise you - I will embarrass you (no less because of the degree to which you've evidently underestimated me and anyone who disagrees with your divine doctrine).


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So Party Notes isn't the place for discussion and debate that udo called for and that you said it was.
> 
> I note your argument has moved into there being no need for an internal bulletin that fosters and publishes debate and discussion.



I assume that DU would argue that the debate and discussion takes place in branch meetings, conference, party council. Which it does to some extent.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

DU are you having a hard time of things? Why are you so angry all the time?



> And you're surprised your son hates you?



I mean what is the need for such a personalised attack? Unless the poster in question has given you this kinda grief then it's out of order and pathetic to be honest.

As for the SWP, as Udo has said their view of democratic centralism has more akin to stalinism than the Bolsheviks. Unfortunately far too many trotskyist groups have taken on stalinist ways of organising. It mostly stems from political degeneration generally but also means an organisation is off putting, hard to work with and full of unpleasant and zealot like individuals (well as far as the organisers and leaderships are concerned). That's not to say I agree with everything the Bolsheviks did on this level either. Leaving aside the closing down of factions (which Trotsky, at the time, supported), there was also a generally aggressive and rude way the Bolshevik leadership seemed to have when they interacted with each other and others. Again too many wanna be toy town generals on the far left seem to see this as a positive rather than a negative. It always astounds me how many people on the left let their leaders speak to them, it's often worse than manager/worker relationships that I see at work.

The SWP bans factions for 9 months of the year. What possible justification can they have for that? Even the Bolsheviks didn't do that during a revolutionary situation.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> I assume that DU would argue that the debate and discussion takes place in branch meetings, conference, party council. Which it does to some extent.



But organised opposition to the leadership is banned for 9 months. And how can you realistically expect any faction to get off the ground and argue their case in 3 months and then pretend nothing has happened when they're shut down after party conference?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I assume that DU would argue that the debate and discussion takes place in branch meetings, conference, party council. Which it does to some extent.



He half did and it might well do - but that's not what you called for. Keeping debate localised only helps to cut off an isolate any dissent and effectively kills the agrument, remove it from any wider influences that might help it usefully develop. Without a national open internal bulletin you're never going to change the internal culture. And that's why there isn't one - those who benefit froim the current structure do not want ti challenged or questioned.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> ...what is the need for such a personalised attack?



I'm just giving him advice on how to address people; if he wants to be treated with any kind of respect then he can step off his "intellectual pedastel" and try talking to people normally. It's no less insulting to be spoken to from his "leftier than thou" perspective than it is for me to respond (in my opinion) accordingly. For fuck's sake, he wanders aimlessly into conversations assuming that the only possible reason for everyone in the world not agreeing with him must be simply because we haven't heard it before - the great irony of SpeeGee logic. "Seperate the revolution from reality" - they want a revolution in people's heads only and assume the world will change accordingly. It's like they're "turning Marxism on its head" and reinventing Hegelianism where the quest for socialism is nothing more than the search for the 'pure idea' of what socialism should be, and cannot avoid their utopian envisionments of 'what a socialist society should look like' as a result. It's the least materialistic and Marxist analysis ever created!

Retards! RETARDS!!  

Grrrrr....


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

This question of what kind of party organisation we need has exercised the minds of greater minds than me - and I'm no expert on it. It would probably be useful if rather than just attacking the SWP, people gave examples of the kind of structures they feel would be appropriate to building a mass, revolutionary organisation in the UK. I don't really regard myself as necessarily having answers to the questions I raise

Obviously, you don't want the party to become saturated in internal debate to the cost of engaging with the external world or to become a talking shop

When I was in the SWP I thought that it's internal culture was partly the result of revolutionary ideas being so marginalised at the moment in our soceity, I had the idea that if there were another 1968 the party would suddenly become more impure, more vibrant and more dynamic in it's internal culture.

Also, it seemed that in one sense their approach seemed succesful in that they were far bigger than their competitors.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> I'm just giving him advice on how to address people



Are you serious? How can you give anyone advice on this when you routinely give people unwarranted abuse. There is no way you'd be like this in real life (well unless you wanted to get a kicking every other day), so why on here?



> Retards! RETARDS



Very nice. Those spastics eh........

And as for the SPGB why not either ignore them or respond in a political way. Just because you think what they're saying is nonsense there is no need to get so personal.



> This question of what kind of party organisation we need has exercised the minds of greater minds than me - and I'm no expert on it. It would probably be useful if rather than just attacking the SWP, people gave examples of the kind of structures they feel would be appropriate to building a mass, revolutionary organisation in the UK. I don't really regard myself as necessarily having answers to the questions I raise



And I certainly don't either. But surely forming factions and tendencies should be a basic right whatever the organisation? Being able to challenge democracy is essential as is having education as a primary concern, not an add on. If you have a leadership that can't be challenged then things will inevitably degenerate.

The Bolsheviks had internal factions/tendencies and they led a revolution.



> When I was in the SWP I thought that it's internal culture was partly the result of revolutionary ideas being so marginalised at the moment in our soceity



That is part of it but the root cause is the SWPs politics and utterly undemocratic regime that leads from that.



> Also, it seemed that in one sense their approach seemed succesful in that they were far bigger than their competitors.



I'm sure the stalinist parties used the same logic.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Are you serious?



My whole internet persona is one big joke! Jeeeeez!


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> When I was in the SWP I thought that it's internal culture was partly the result of revolutionary ideas being so marginalised at the moment in our soceity, I had the idea that if there were another 1968 the party would suddenly become more impure, more vibrant and more dynamic in it's internal culture.



In a sense, thats a pretty practical view. I think that is why a clear internal democratic regime as an idea instilled in every member to the point of principle(*). is so important though (if we are ever going to be effective when things change externally). Along side this the idea of self-education - that members are not just 'followers'.

*ie not just 'formally' (not that the SWP even have that) - after all the old WRP was known for its 'formal' internal democratic regime but the reality was somewhat different...


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> If it weren't so funny that you think you've outsmarted me with your frankly entirely incoherant and piecemeal "analysis" of Lenin and 'State and Revolution', I'd be annoyed. Do you actually want me to seriously respond? Because if I do - I promise you - I will embarrass you (no less because of the degree to which you've evidently underestimated me and anyone who disagrees with your divine doctrine).


 You're getting aerated now, aren't you?  Never a good idea.  

 And you continue to ascribe ideas and opinions to me that I do not hold.  Now, I did not offer an anlysis of 'State and Revolution', rather, I quoted from it.  And yes, I do want you to respond.  But not with ad hominem attacks.  And no, you won't embarrass me at all.  Your organisation has been shown to be consistently wrong and consistently anti-working class.  And I haven't underestimated you at all.  Your political allegiance is all I need to inform me of where you stand in my estimation.

Like all of those who follow the leadership of the SWP, you have absorbed what your leaders have told you about the SPGB.  It is wrong.  Entirely.  If you want to 'embarrass' me, as you put it, you'd do well to indulge in a little bit of research.  What you're doing now is akin to attempting to discredit cherries by attacking apples.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> My whole internet persona is one big joke! Jeeeeez!



Fair enough. But it kinda ruins threads. No big deal but don't see the need for it.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Very nice. Those spastics eh........



side issue (but one worth pointing out with this DU fucker...)

I've got a fine wee friend who spends his entire life being labelled like this. Fantastic fella who makes people re-think daily just though being so much better than those around him (as you have to be simply to get 'accepted')

maybe you can chat to his father about retards DU? (he is a long term SWP member - used to work on their paper - HM). I am sure he could help you to clarify the issue

wanker


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

You Politically Correct whining pansy fucker. Shut your mouth - some of my best friends are disabled you knob.

Edit; and before you talk about 'pansy' - my best friend is bi and inordinately effeminate, too.


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> some of my best friends are disabled


   

I bet some of them are black too.  fucking joker.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 16, 2007)

Unusual for an SWP thread to deteriorate in this manner.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> You Politically Correct whining pansy fucker. Shut your mouth - some of my best friends are disabled you knob.
> 
> Edit; and before you talk about 'pansy' - my best friend is bi and inordinately effeminate, too.



You absolute prick. This reminds me of the old "but my best mate is black".

So if you've got mates from other races do you think it would be ok to start throwing racist abuse around on message boards? What about if you've got female friends, start talking about the bitches?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> Unusual for an SWP thread to deteriorate in this manner.



Nothing to do with it being about the SWP, it's DU being abusive.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> Your political allegiance is all I need to inform me of where you stand in my estimation.



Oh my God - just when I thought it couldn't get any worse. For your information (and I know it might be hard for you to imagine being a member of a political party which doesn't devote 100% of its time to whining about other leftwing organisations) the SWP has told me nothing about the SPGB - I have found about it all on my lonesome! And I wasn't ascribing to you views which you do not hold - I was simply giving you a fairly concise analysis of the massive logical flaws of the SPGB _OBVIOUS_ to anyone approaching the org. from a proper Marxist perspective.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You Politically Correct whining pansy fucker. Shut your mouth - some of my best friends are disabled you knob.
> 
> Edit; and before you talk about 'pansy' - my best friend is bi and inordinately effeminate, too.



... & your really REALLY best mate is a disabled black gay bloke...... 

....don't look in a mirror, you'll just depress yourself....


----------



## Jografer (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> from a proper Marxist perspective.



Ah, yes, of course... how nice for you to be so wadical......


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> You absolute prick. This reminds me of the old "but my best mate is black".
> 
> So if you've got mates from other races do you think it would be ok to start throwing racist abuse around on message boards? What about if you've got female friends, start talking about the bitches?



FOR FUCK'S SAKE!? DO YOU LIVE ON THE SAME PLANET AS EVERYONE ELSE YOU LOONY LEFTIES!?!? "WORDS" ARE NOTHING BUT WHAT WE ASCRIBE TO THEM! CONTEXT IS KEY! AND LIKE ANY OFFENSIVE WORDS THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS IN WHICH ITS USES ARE ACCEPTBALE INTELLECTUALLY, MORALLY, SOCIALLY AND WHICHEVER-WHAT WAY YOU WISH TO SEE THEM!

UNLESS YOU'VE ALL BEEN ENTIRELY LIVING ON SEPERATE WORLD'S TO THE REST OF US YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT WORDS SUCH AS 'GAY' HAVE BEEN ASCRIBED WITH NEW MEANINGS, PARTLY IN JEST OF THE FACT THEY ARE INSENSITIVE - AND THE WORD RETARD IN PARTICULAR HAS FOR SO LONG BEEN REDUNDANT AS A MEDICAL TERM THAT NOW IT PASSES EASILY AND ALMOST UNNOTICED AS A SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENT FOR "STUPID" IN MANY CONVERSATIONS. PERHAPS YOU GUYS JUST AREN'T AS DOWN WITH THE KIDS AS ME, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOUR MORALISTIC OUTRAGE AT PETTY BOLLOCKS LIKE THE USE OF THE TERM 'RETARD' IN A SITUATION WHERE I WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO WAS IN SOME WAY MENTALLY IMPAIRED IS NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE!


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2007)

stop shouting, you're making yourself look even more stupid.

oh, and no one believes you, by the way.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> oh, and no one believes you, by the way.



    

the prick


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

It's not opinion, moron - it's fact. What on Earth do you think language is? Some divine tenet of concrete existance which has existed in stasis throughout the aeons?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You Politically Correct whining pansy fucker. Shut your mouth - some of my best friends are disabled you knob.
> 
> Edit; and before you talk about 'pansy' - *my best friend *is bi and inordinately effeminate, too.



I've never thought that Chris Bambery is that effeminate or are you talking about another member of the CC?


----------



## Jografer (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> FOR FUCK'S SAKE!? DO YOU LIVE ON THE SAME PLANET AS EVERYONE ELSE YOU LOONY LEFTIES!?!? "WORDS" ARE NOTHING BUT WHAT WE ASCRIBE TO THEM! CONTEXT IS KEY! AND LIKE ANY OFFENSIVE WORDS THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS IN WHICH ITS USES ARE ACCEPTBALE INTELLECTUALLY, MORALLY, SOCIALLY AND WHICHEVER-WHAT WAY YOU WISH TO SEE THEM!
> 
> UNLESS YOU'VE ALL BEEN ENTIRELY LIVING ON SEPERATE WORLD'S TO THE REST OF US YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT WORDS SUCH AS 'GAY' HAVE BEEN ASCRIBED WITH NEW MEANINGS, PARTLY IN JEST OF THE FACT THEY ARE INSENSITIVE - AND THE WORD RETARD IN PARTICULAR HAS FOR SO LONG BEEN REDUNDANT AS A MEDICAL TERM THAT NOW IT PASSES EASILY AND ALMOST UNNOTICED AS A SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENT FOR "STUPID" IN MANY CONVERSATIONS. PERHAPS YOU GUYS JUST AREN'T AS DOWN WITH THE KIDS AS ME, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOUR MORALISTIC OUTRAGE AT PETTY BOLLOCKS LIKE THE USE OF THE TERM 'RETARD' IN A SITUATION WHERE I WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO WAS IN SOME WAY MENTALLY IMPAIRED IS NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE!



An SWP rant that includes complaining about "loony lefties" & claiming to be "down with the kids".... 

...we have a new defintion of 'ironic'....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

What a tool


----------



## newbie (Oct 16, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Unusual for an SWP thread to deteriorate in this manner.


the only SWP poster on the thread satisfactorily diverts attention from something faintly substantial to meaningless nonsense.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What a tool



bet his real names 'quentin'

(fuck it, the threads destroyed anyway...)


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 16, 2007)

newbie said:
			
		

> the only SWP poster on the thread


???


----------



## Jografer (Oct 16, 2007)

newbie said:
			
		

> the only SWP poster on the thread satisfactorily diverts attention from something faintly substantial to meaningless nonsense.



Presumably under instructions from high, high above....


----------



## newbie (Oct 16, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> ???


have I misunderstood?  is there another one?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 16, 2007)

No, I wasn't sure to whom you were referring.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> An SWP rant that includes complaining about "loony lefties" & claiming to be "down with the kids"....
> 
> ...we have a new defintion of 'ironic'....



Hooray! You correctly established that I was being ironic when I used the term "down with the kids!". Sadly, your infantile grasp of language lead you to ultimately and completely fail in understanding that this was a conscious effort on my part - the very term 'down with the kids being a massive cliche.

Disagreeing with my style of writing or opinions is one thing - but constantly underestimating my intelligence only makes me stronger dik-edz.


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Oh my God - just when I thought it couldn't get any worse. For your information (and I know it might be hard for you to imagine being a member of a political party which doesn't devote 100% of its time to whining about other leftwing organisations) the SWP has told me nothing about the SPGB - I have found about it all on my lonesome! And I wasn't ascribing to you views which you do not hold - I was simply giving you a fairly concise analysis of the massive logical flaws of the SPGB _OBVIOUS_ to anyone approaching the org. from a proper Marxist perspective.



So concise that they are mere assertions?  Bollocks.  Give me evidence.  Back up your arguments.  And incidentally, I'm not a member of the SPGB.  Members of the SPGB spend their time putting the case for socialism.  A part of that, not the 100% that you assert, is demolishing the nonsense that is passed off a 'socialism' by pro-capitalist parties like yours.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I've never thought that Chris Bambery is that effeminate or are you talking about another member of the CC?



lol - who do you think I am?


----------



## Jografer (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Hooray! You correctly established that I was being ironic when I used the term "down with the kids!". Sadly, your infantile grasp of language lead you to ultimately and completely fail in understanding that this was a conscious effort on my part - the very term 'down with the kids being a massive cliche.
> 
> Disagreeing with my style of writing or opinions is one thing - but constantly underestimating my intelligence only makes me stronger dik-edz.




... nice try...... & not even in capitals...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> So concise that they are mere assertions?  Bollocks.  Give me evidence.  Back up your arguments.  And incidentally, I'm not a member of the SPGB.  Members of the SPGB spend their time putting the case for socialism.  A part of that, not the 100% that you assert, is demolishing the nonsense that is passed off a 'socialism' by pro-capitalist parties like yours.



I'm not submitting to your ridiculous demands for clairty until you at least show me and everyone else on this internet forum the decency and respect to talk to them properly.

At least when I abuse people I don't simultaneously burst into a self-righteous outrage over people's lack of willingness to submit to my intellectual authority and 'justify themselves' at my demand.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 16, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> An SWP rant that includes complaining about "loony lefties" & claiming to be "down with the kids"....
> 
> ...we have a new defintion of 'ironic'....


Especially seeing as _they_ were the ones to name a party with such a cringe-inducingly "hip and down wiv the yoof" name like RESPECT.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> At least when I abuse people I don't simultaneously burst into a self-righteous outrage over people's lack of willingness to submit to my intellectual authority and 'justify themselves' at my demand.




1,2,3.... (all together now).........  "OH YES YOU DO"


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I'm not submitting to your ridiculous demands for clairty until you at least show me and everyone else on this internet forum the decency and respect to talk to them properly.
> 
> At least when I abuse people I don't simultaneously burst into a self-righteous outrage over people's lack of willingness to submit to my intellectual authority and 'justify themselves' at my demand.



You're displaying definite signs of an inferiority complex, there.  Moreover, you are a thoroughgoing hypocrite.  You've just been defending yourself by telling people it doesn't matter if they don't like your mode of expression.  And if you find demands for clarity ridiculous, well, it doesn't surprise me.  After all, you belong to an organisation that specialises in distortion and obfuscation.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Edit; Ok - irony alert, I read your post wrong.

Your constant and unsubstantiated whining about the SWP is mightily intellectually impressive my SpeeGite chum, but I'm not a hypocrite. All I'm doing is giving as good as I get - and hopefully by giving intellectual doorstops like yourself a little taste of what you like to dole out to other people all the time you'll see that infact - however nicely and wittily you wrap up your disgustingly puerile insults or how mightily you boom down your address to the peons infact what you're doing is no more sophisticated than plain old honest abuse.

So really, all I'm doing is being you, but honest, shithead.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

> I've never thought that Chris Bambery is that effeminate or are you talking about another member of the CC?






			
				Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> lol - who do you think I am?



I thought you and Chris regularly visited sushi bars together, did I get it wrong?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Hooray! You correctly established that I was being ironic when I used the term "down with the kids!". Sadly, your infantile grasp of language lead you to ultimately and completely fail in understanding that this was a conscious effort on my part - the very term 'down with the kids being a massive cliche.



thats us fooled  

arsewipe


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> You're displaying definite signs of an inferiority complex, there.



Doctor Sigmund Freud is in the house . . .


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I thought you and Chris regularly visited sushi bars together, did I get it wrong?



Quite! I think you mean Red-Haired Simon from head office perhaps? My best friend is far more expressly effeminate than "Knock-your-block-off-Bambers".


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

I've come to the conclusion DU that you're either having a break down (or on the verge of it) or have some kind of other similar problem.

Either way debating on here seems to do you no good. 1) You make the SWP look like a bunch of idiots (or spastics or retards if you prefer) 2) it doesn't seem to do you any good. Get some relaxation oils or something and get your other half to ease your shoulder muscles a little. Tension isn't good for you.


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> the decency and respect to talk to them properly.


oh the irony!


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

> I've come to the conclusion DU that you're either having a break down (or on the verge of it) or have some kind of other similar problem.



Why personalise things?


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

...so anyway....


whither the SWPs and Respect now?... 


(diverting as DU is, can he just have his own thread for his online comedy persona?)


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Edit; Ok - irony alert, I read your post wrong.
> 
> Your constant and unsubstantiated whining about the SWP is mightily intellectually impressive my SpeeGite chum, but I'm not a hypocrite. All I'm doing is giving as good as I get - and hopefully by giving intellectual doorstops like yourself a little taste of what you like to dole out to other people all the time you'll see that infact - however nicely and wittily you wrap up your disgustingly puerile insults or how mightily you boom down your address to the peons infact what you're doing is no more sophisticated than plain old honest abuse.
> 
> So really, all I'm doing is being you, but honest, shithead.



I don't consider myself to be an intellectual, but thanks for the apology anyway.  You are forgiven.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> Lenin scoffed at the notion of workers being able to understand the case for socialism as well, which was but one example of the contempt in which he held members of the working-class.
> 
> Durutti?  Who the hell is Durutti, then?  He's going to pull me up for attacking a bunch of confused, elitist, vanguardist, Leninist sheep?  You can feel me quaking, can't you?
> 
> ...



I have never held the position you ascribe to me. 

It is indeed necessary for the majority of people to understand the case for socialism and consciously opt for it. How could it be any other way?  

Nevertheless, along the way there'll be a lot of challenges to that consciousness and there has to be organisations fit and able to meet those challenges. To be able to reach the parts some other organisations can't reach.  

Durutti, is a kind gentleman (no Leninist ), who has started a campaign for good manners on this forum.

Lenin was a kind gentleman, who held the working class in high esteem, because he understood they were the only people who could really change the world.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> side issue (but one worth pointing out with this DU fucker...)
> 
> I've got a fine wee friend who spends his entire life being labelled like this. Fantastic fella who makes people re-think daily just though being so much better than those around him (as you have to be simply to get 'accepted')
> 
> ...



oh dear.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Why personalise things?



It's to wind people up, which ironically he goes on about to others. Hypocrite!


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 16, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Lenin was a kind gentleman, who held the working class in high esteem, because he understood they were the only people who could really change the world.


And who beleived "liberty is so precious that it must be rationed". Yeah, lovely man...


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> And who beleived "liberty is so precious that it must be rationed". Yeah, lovely man...



Context you hippy.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> I don't consider myself to be an intellectual, but thanks for the apology anyway.  You are forgiven.



No, you can't be  as you failed to address UD's excellent post# 111.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 16, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Context you hippy.


What sort of context could that remark _possibly_ be put into where it looks any better?!?!


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> What sort of context could that remark _possibly_ be put into where it looks any better?!?!



'Liberty is precious—so precious that it must be rationed' is put in a revolutionary context, to those who would use slave labour; to those who exploit workers; to those who profiteer from war; to those who exploit the planet; to those who foul the environment; to those who endanger species; etc, etc.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> Why personalise things?



Are you taking the fucking piss?! UD has come on here and said that he can understand why someone's son hates them and then dishes out loads of personal abuse (including calling people retards) and you pick me up on personalising things? I know you like to do this from time to time but you could have a tad of objectivity about it all.

And to be honest, in a round about way I was trying to be nice as what else could explain someone heaping untold abuse on various posters? But don't worry about that eh.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> It's to wind people up, which ironically he goes on about to others. Hypocrite!



It's not to wind anyone up (although I suspect that exactly what mk12 is trying to do), it's responding to pages of abuse by DU.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> It's to wind people up, which ironically he goes on about to others. Hypocrite!



That was my point, although I wasn't being harsh. DU comes out with a lot of bullshit, but why do you need to say you think he's having a breakdown or he's having "problems"?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> That was my point, although I wasn't being harsh. DU comes out with a lot of bullshit, but why do you need to say you think he's having a breakdown or he's having "problems"?



Yeah, whatever. It's more like from time to time you feel the need to have a dig. It's pathetic.

DU wasn't just coming out with "bullshit" he was telling someone that he could understand why their son hated them (despite no personal provocation) and then went on to call him a retard. To be honest I can't explain why someone gets that nasty unless they are having some kind of problems in their life. To be honest that's a more sympathetic explanation than just saying he's a wanker.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

Also, just for balance people on here have called him a fucker, wanker, fucking joker, said don't look in a mirror, you'll just depress yourself, a prick, a tool and an arsewipe.....

and yet you feel the need to pick me up for suggesting that his behaviour could be for personal problems?

Give it a break.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

just pointing out hypocricy!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

But you're not are you. You're just having a pointless dig. It's boring.

I'm suggesting why someone might be behaving like that (and I was actually being serious, not taking the piss, even if my suggestion of using relaxation oils was) and you pick that up. But you don't pick up people giving him a stream of insults which are far worse.


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> ...so anyway....
> 
> 
> whither the SWPs and Respect now?...
> ...



get back to the issues....


----------



## audiotech (Oct 16, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Also, just for balance people on here have called him a fucker, wanker, fucking joker, said don't look in a mirror, you'll just depress yourself, a prick, a tool and an arsewipe.....
> 
> and yet you feel the need to pick me up for suggesting that his behaviour could be for personal problems?
> 
> Give it a break.



But, I for one don't expect to see that sort of thing from you.  

Btw, UD will be dead proud of those expletives being thrown at him.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

Why do I feel the need to say it? Because to be honest I think it should be taken into account that he could be having a hard time (and granted I shouldn't have put the sarcastic stuff about massage oils in) rather than the fact that he's just being an arsehole or on a wind up.

I also think there is a difference between initiating something (as DU has done) and responding to it. Like if someone punches you in the face, and you punch them back. Unless you're a "turn the other cheek" type, which I'm not.

But as said given the stream of insults that other people have come out with why don't you pick them up on it as well? Why not tell them to "break the cycle". The reason being that you're just having a dig.



> But, I for one don't expect to see that sort of thing from you.



Well no-ones perfect (even if I might be as close as you can get  )


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

Anyway I apologise for being sarcastic. Happy mk12? 

Now. Moving on.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

> But as said given the stream of insults that other people have come out with why don't you pick them up on it as well? Why not tell them to "break the cycle". The reason being that you're just having a dig.



Enough people had ripped DU to pieces on this thread already, correctly. 

Now get back to Revoboards Juan.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

Who is Juan  



> Enough people had ripped DU to pieces on this thread already, correctly.



So it's ok for them to "rip him to pieces" but I can't say anything at all? Hmmmm, yeah, that makes sense. As said, you're just having a dig. And as also said, it's boring.

Now. Moving on.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

They didn't suggest he was having a breakdown, as far as I am aware?

Now moving on Juan.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 16, 2007)

Do we know for a fact that the people it is claimed have been expelled, really have been?  There is no source apart from an item from a rival political group.  Is this any more than speculation, or even wishful thinking?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

Problem is, Socialist Worker will not mention this at all. Which isn't necessarily that bad, but you'd think they mention it somewhere just to let members know?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> They didn't suggest he was having a breakdown, as far as I am aware?



So suggesting someone is having a breakdown is worse than calling him:

a fucker, wanker, fucking joker, said don't look in a mirror, you'll just depress yourself, a prick, a tool and an arsewipe.....

I think not. No you're just having a dig.

Moving on bore.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

It is actually. I tried to move on there ^^


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Do we know for a fact that the people it is claimed have been expelled, really have been?  There is no source apart from an item from a rival political group.  Is this any more than speculation, or even wishful thinking?




You doubt it?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

In your view maybe, not in mine.

And as said, saying something to someone after they've been insulting to someone is not the same as initiating it. And to be honest I'd think it would be better if his rants were the result of him having problems than just being an arsehole.

I tried to move on there ^^

PS Have a nice evening


----------



## junius (Oct 16, 2007)

Hands off Das Uberdog!

How many others when they were 17/18 years old did/say rather foolish things? Older members of this forum ought to bear his in mind when debating him. 

The young have the right to balls up from time to time - the rest of us have no such excuse unfortunately.

He's got spirit - pity he's been educated in such an appalling version of marxism.


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2007)

is he really that old!!


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

Now, further up before The Dog intervened, I wondered what would happen to Respect. Now the likeliest scenario is that as suggested above dissolev after ensuring its apparatchik are firmly encsonsed on the local govt gravy train.

However if the SWP have expelled a bunch of "cadre" what will they do?

There's not really anywhere for em to go. So it might be in their own interests (as in Vaniegem's terms they are living the role of "militants") to try and make a go of Respect (along with the rumps of the leftovers) and push it to become a left populist movement.

can't see it myself (nor tbh do i see the point) but for trainspotters it could be intersting.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> Hands off Das Uberdog!
> 
> How many others when they were 17/18 years old did/say rather foolish things? Older members of this forum ought to bear his in mind when debating him.
> 
> ...



You see, i'd usually be sympathetic to him because he's saying stuff that I would have a couple of years ago. He is passionate etc. But his views on Hezbollah and middle east put me right off, and find it hard to see him in an innocent light like you.

I don't think Respect are in trouble. I think the SWP could be however.


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> Hands off Das Uberdog!
> 
> How many others when they were 17/18 years old did/say rather foolish things? Older members of this forum ought to bear his in mind when debating him.
> 
> ...









"Socialist Worker 50p!...and stay off the ice"


----------



## Macullam (Oct 16, 2007)

*Democracy needed at the heart of the battle*

Democracy needed at the heart of the battle

Article in the latest SW nothing to do with expulsions.


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> I don't think Respect are in trouble. I think the SWP could be however.



How so?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

That's three middle-to-top members being expelled. I doubt many people will sympathise with the CC on this. There definitely seems to be a divide in the SWP. If infighting occurs, people like Galloway won't give a shit. Respect will carry on doing what it's doing.


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

So you think a bunch of experienced actvists might jump ship?

to respect?

somewhere else?

or to cynicism in cyberspace?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

God knows. I just can't see experienced activists just sitting back and taking this, for such poor reasons.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> How many others when they were 17/18 years old did/say rather foolish things? Older members of this forum ought to bear his in mind when debating him.



Fair enough.

Also mk12 just wanna say you're totally right. The reason I didn't say so originally is because I was in a bad mood and being stubborn. But I shouldn't have posted that up.

I suppose I was also defensive because I feel you pick me up more than others. I think, if you're honest, it's because you find my politics and/or way of debating a bit grating.

Anyway, I was in the wrong. I apologise.


----------



## JHE (Oct 16, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> God knows. I just can't see experienced activists just sitting back and taking this, for such poor reasons.



I can.  The three were expelled for disobedience, apparently.  The Social Worker bosses will explain the importance of 'discipline' in 'the party'.  It's 'democratic centralist', innit.  The paper-sellers and line-spouting parrots  will accept what they are told.  Don't they always?

The expelled ones may also be offered the chance to appeal to the next party conference.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> or to cynicism in cyberspace?



 

To be honest the lack of an alternative to go to might make people less likely to leave. I mean I doubt RESPECT has the people on the ground to survive without the SWP and who else would they join?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

I largely agree JHE, but I think that the SWPer will find it harder than they used to because they have less hardened trotskyists in their ranks and far more "soft members".

But if there is a big fall out and the SWP is either much reduced or falls apart I don't think the rest of the left will benefit much, if at all. The gradual dwindle and collapse of the old CPGB didn't boost any of the other left groups much, people just left.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> I can.  The three were expelled for disobedience, apparently.  The Social Worker bosses will explain the importance of 'discipline' in 'the party'.  It's 'democratic centralist', innit.  The paper-sellers and line-spouting parrots  will accept what they are told.  Don't they always?
> 
> The expelled ones may also be offered the chance to appeal to the next party conference.



Rank and file members, who aren't known amongst the membership, getting expelled wouldn't really matter. But surely people on the same level of the party (not cc, but well known members) will find these explusions a little harsh?

Maybe I put too much faith in members of the SWP. A quiet chat with fellow members saying how bad this is is very different to actually doing something about I guess.



> I doubt RESPECT has the people on the ground to survive without the SWP and who else would they join?



Nick Bird left SWP but still works in Respect. I imagine Ovenden, Wrack etc will do the same. As would others who leave/get expelled.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> Nick Bird left SWP but still works in Respect. I imagine Ovenden, Wrack etc will do the same. As would others who leave/get expelled.



But if the SWP withdraws I doubt RESPECT would survive.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

My local branch (I don't know what the state of it now is) had more non-SWPers than SWP. But our branch was small. I don't know what it's like in other places. Surely in Tower Hamlets it's not majority SWP?


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2007)

I think (as I inferred above) that much depnds upon the nature of those leaving..."softer" or already disillusioned types will probably enjoy a well earned rest...whereas the addicted will transfer their faith and energies to Respect. Those dropping out are of less interest, after all there's nothing new about this. But could exSWPers, freed from that Party's chains, push Respect somewhere fruitful?

I can't see it...but surely some might hope so.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

I can't see it either.

PS Hope you saw my apology mk12!


----------



## mk12 (Oct 16, 2007)

It really does depend on the person. Someone I know who left the SWP just started joining every other leftist sect, whereas others reevaluate their politics altogether. It's a tough question.

CR: No need to apologise you big softy!


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> CR: No need to apologise you big softy!



bloody wind up merchant


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 16, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I have never held the position you ascribe to me.
> 
> It is indeed necessary for the majority of people to understand the case for socialism and consciously opt for it. How could it be any other way?
> 
> ...



I never ascribed any opinion to you.  In fact, this is the first time I've noticed you in this thread.  I was attacking Das Uberdog and the SWP.

The SWP is a vanguardist party and certainly does not believe that the working-class need to understand the case for socialism before such a society can be established.  They want to lead the working-class to socialism, or, more accurately, to state-capitalism.

I have not encountered Durutti, but since I have no need of any kind of guidance in good manners, I have little to fear.  The attack mongrel who has been nibbling my ankles, however, stands in need of some lecturing...

Lenin was nothing short of despicable.  An opportunist, a murderer, a liar, a social inadequate and a coward.  And those are his good points.  The outcome of Leninism?  Stalinism.  The difference between Stalinism and Hitlerism?  It's the difference between gas chambers and gulags.  Nothing else.


----------



## JoePolitix (Oct 16, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> Lenin was nothing short of despicable.  An opportunist, a murderer, a liar, a social inadequate and a coward.  And those are his good points.



    

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v6vpHvJlZFY


----------



## junius (Oct 16, 2007)

Extracts from the current SWP Party Notes

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/692/swp party notes.htm


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2007)

Where this all goes depends not just on whether the swp are preparing a wholesale withdrawal (which i doubt, its more likely to be the illogical control freakery mentioned in other posts).  It will be more about the reaction of Respect itself.  More to the point, the other _bits _of Respect.  Whatever remaining trotlet groups there are, will of course play the whole thing up and seek to reposition themselves as the leading brand.  However the key issue will be muslim groups.  Will they regard the expulsions and accusations of 'communalism' as an attack on them?  If so, the whole thing could unravel.  Can imagine issues around women's rights and sexuality coming to the fore..


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2007)

Not wishing to derail the topic, but put in for clarification, I don't think I'm having a breakdown. But I _DO_ think that I'm hilarious...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> Not wishing to derail the topic, but put in for clarification, I don't think I'm having a breakdown. But I DO think that I'm hilarious...



Good


----------



## dennisr (Oct 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Not wishing to derail the topic, but put in for clarification, I don't think I'm having a breakdown. But I _DO_ think that I'm hilarious...



for further clarification - do you consider yourself to be an arsewipe?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 16, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> Extracts from the current SWP Party Notes
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/692/swp party notes.htm



It takes a long time to say very little. 

There are two sets of accusations against the expelled. The first set is used to justify the CC telling them to resign from their jobs or not accept a post. Their refusal to accept these instructions is then put forward as the actual cause for expulsion.

The interesting thing is that while their refusal to accept the instructions is explained in a bit of detail, particularly in the Wrack case, the reasons for those instructions are left very vague. The membership are told that they disagreed publically with the "line" or that they denounced the SWP to someone else. But they aren't told what exactly any of them are supposed to have said. Or where they said it. Or for what reason they said it. Or who they said it to.

Flimsy to say the least.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 16, 2007)

> for further clarification - do you consider yourself to be an arsewipe?



You'll have mk12 on your back if you carry on like that mister


----------



## disownedspirit (Oct 17, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> My local branch (I don't know what the state of it now is) had more non-SWPers than SWP. But our branch was small. I don't know what it's like in other places. Surely in Tower Hamlets it's not majority SWP?



but in small towns the SWP is the organised left
for all those cheerleaders for the demise of the swp , what are you going to do now?

blame who?


----------



## laptop (Oct 17, 2007)

disownedspirit said:
			
		

> for all those cheerleaders for the demise of the swp , what are you going to do now?



Politics?


----------



## laptop (Oct 17, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> Extracts from the current SWP Party Notes
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/692/swp party notes.htm





> It is important to make one thing clear, the three comrades have not been  expelled because they disagreed with the Central Committee.



Oh no. Of course not.

* resigns as self in deference to CC *


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 17, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Not wishing to derail the topic, but put in for clarification, I don't think I'm having a breakdown. But I _DO_ think that I'm hilarious...


 I think you're hilarious, too.  But probably not for the same reasons.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 17, 2007)

> More seriously, they have denounced the SWP to individuals and organisations outside the Party



They may have also committed "thought crime".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2007)

Here's a question - _how_ did the SWP arrive at this situation outlined below where they have not one but two full timers working for someone they  characterise as anti-SWP?

_Kevin and Rob are SWP members working for George Galloway.  However, recently this situation has become increasingly difficult. The party leadership has come to believe that it was impossible to have two comrades working for someone who has openly attacked the SWP in recent months. This was a position several leading members of the SWP articulated at the recent Party Council. Also over the last year there have been a number of meetings between the CC and Rob and Kevin.

At these meetings the CC raised major concerns with the way both these comrades worked in Respect. We believe that they were more concerned with promoting George Galloway’s line in Respect than the SWP’s position._


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 17, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> I think you're hilarious, too.  But probably not for the same reasons.



What a coincidence, because however madly hilarious I could possibly be, I'd still say that you have the be the funniest guy in the world. Ever. But again, probably not in a way you'd like to be.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 17, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> You'll have mk12 on your back if you carry on like that mister



well, no. Because calling someone names isn't the same as saying someone is having a breakdown, or has mental problems (for example). There's a difference.

Glad to hear you're ok though Uberdog. xxx


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 17, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> 'Liberty is precious—so precious that it must be rationed' is put in a revolutionary context, to those who would use slave labour; to those who exploit workers; to those who profiteer from war; to those who exploit the planet; to those who foul the environment; to those who endanger species; etc, etc.


_Is_ that what he mant, though? It's so ambigous that some folks such as yourself might be able to convince themelves that's what he meant by it, wheras others like me read it like a dictator justifying the declaration of martial law.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 17, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> What a coincidence, because however madly hilarious I could possibly be, I'd still say that you have the be the funniest guy in the world. Ever. But again, probably not in a way you'd like to be.



Oscar Wilde is in the house!


----------



## fanciful (Oct 17, 2007)

Butchers is right, the reasons for the explusions are entirely apolitical - a defence of the sect - it's a shame that it appears that the 3 have been machine politicians for so long that they haven't even got round to releasing their version of events yet.
They should pull their fingers out!


----------



## glenquagmire (Oct 17, 2007)

Yes they have http://socialistunity.com/


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 17, 2007)

> well, no. Because calling someone names isn't the same as saying someone is having a breakdown, or has mental problems (for example). There's a difference.



Fair enough. I'll stick to calling you a tosser and an arsewipe from now on then (joke!!)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 17, 2007)

The packing war is on it seems.

According to Socialist Unity, Tower Hamlets Respect had a meeting yesterday to elect its 57 delegates. When it became clear that the SWP slate was going to lose, the SWP disrupted the meeting. It seems that after everyone else had left the SWP stayed behind and claim to have reconvened the meeting and voted through their slate. 

The majority claim that this meeting was unofficial and had no authority and that the real meeting, in the face of attempts to prevent votes from being taken, voted to have the Tower Hamlets committee decide between the slates.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 17, 2007)

The order has come down from on high:

SWP office email:

RESPECT ANNUAL CONFERENCE

The Respect annual conference is going to be very important this year.
We are urging comrades do the following:

You can only get delegated to Respect conference if you are a registered
member.
You MUST be a paid-up member by THIS FRIDAY, 19 October.

Deadline for resolutions is Friday 19 October.
Deadline for the election of delegates is Sunday 4 November.

Once again we are urging as many SWP members as possible to get elected to
the
Respect Conference. If you have any questions please contact John Rees or
the
SWP National Office.

Martin Smith
SWP National Organiser


----------



## mk12 (Oct 17, 2007)

pack pack pack!!!


----------



## audiotech (Oct 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> _Is_ that what he mant, though? It's so ambigous that some folks such as yourself might be able to convince themelves that's what he meant by it, wheras others like me read it like a dictator justifying the declaration of martial law.



He didn't fuck about I'll grant you.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 17, 2007)

GuruYoghourt said:
			
		

> I never ascribed any opinion to you.  In fact, this is the first time I've noticed you in this thread.  I was attacking Das Uberdog and the SWP.
> 
> The SWP is a vanguardist party and certainly does not believe that the working-class need to understand the case for socialism before such a society can be established.  They want to lead the working-class to socialism, or, more accurately, to state-capitalism.
> 
> ...



How quaint.


----------



## chilango (Oct 17, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The packing war is on it seems.
> 
> According to Socialist Unity, Tower Hamlets Respect had a meeting yesterday to elect its 57 delegates. When it became clear that the SWP slate was going to lose, the SWP disrupted the meeting. It seems that after everyone else had left the SWP stayed behind and claim to have reconvened the meeting and voted through their slate.
> 
> The majority claim that this meeting was unofficial and had no authority and that the real meeting, in the face of attempts to prevent votes from being taken, voted to have the Tower Hamlets committee decide between the slates.



That seems awfully familiar (what's the famous case of this kinda behaviour? it wasn't the SWPs...)


----------



## laptop (Oct 17, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> (what's the famous case of this kinda behaviour? it wasn't the SWPs...)



The RCP were well known for disrupting meetings - but the cases I remember were of them disrupting campaigns to keep hospitals open, on the grounds that if they closed the working class would get more miserable and the revolution would be closer.

The Spartacists in Chicago used to line up in a side-street with sharpened banner-poles and charge the flank of any demo they hadn't been invited to. Which rather reduced the frequency of invitations.


----------



## chilango (Oct 17, 2007)

Yeah I went a Spart demo once..very very strange.

Actually was thinking more about the staying behind afterwards and taking votesas if the meeting was still going on...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 17, 2007)

I believe that the SWP may have gone in for a bit of it when they were purging the RDG from Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance. I wouldn't describe that incident as "famous" though.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 17, 2007)

What incident are you talking about chilango


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 17, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> What a coincidence, because however madly hilarious I could possibly be, I'd still say that you have the be the funniest guy in the world. Ever. But again, probably not in a way you'd like to be.



Or, indeed, in a way that you'd comprehend.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2007)

For an anti-leninist you're doing a good job of making a thread laughing at democratic centralism and its real life results revolve around your own ego.


----------



## GuruYoghourt (Oct 17, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> For an anti-leninist you're doing a good job of making a thread laughing at democratic centralism and its real life results revolve around your own ego.


Is what you think.  I use the word 'think' loosely.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2007)

You're not joking.


----------



## Loupylou (Oct 17, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Obviously, you don't want the party to become saturated in internal debate to the cost of engaging with the external world



actually that would be preferable, considering all the campaigns they hijack then fuck right up.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 18, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> The RCP were well known for disrupting meetings - but the cases I remember were of them disrupting campaigns to keep hospitals open, on the grounds that if they closed the working class would get more miserable and the revolution would be closer.



Weren't there some on the 'left' who voted Tory in the 1980s, on the basis that Thatcher was so right-wing it would create (yet another..  ) pre-revolutionary situation.....


----------



## Matt S (Oct 18, 2007)

Weekly Worker this week is classic, and it contains possibly my favourite ever sentence in a letter to the editor:

'It is to be hoped that this marks a genuine left turn, bringing the party back to serious class-struggle politic and foreshadowing a break with the misogynist, homophobic, corrupt, narcissistic, authoritarian, Stalinist/neo-Ba'athist demagogue and his jihadi and careerist, petty bourgeois, communalist allies.'

  

Matt


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Weren't there some on the 'left' who voted Tory in the 1980s, on the basis that Thatcher was so right-wing it would create (yet another..  ) pre-revolutionary situation.....


I do believe that that is another myth, tho a highly believable one.  Even the RCp never actually said that...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> The RCP were well known for disrupting meetings - but the cases I remember were of them disrupting campaigns to keep hospitals open, on the grounds that if they closed the working class would get more miserable and the revolution would be closer.



That's all they ever did. I can't count the number of meetings I attended where there wasn't some Furedi arse-licker sticking his/her oar in. But if you tried to pin them down and they'd pass you to one of their fellow supporters..and so it would go. They refused to support the anti-Apartheid Movement because it was "middle class" (an odd thing for a bunch of middle class pseudo-Marxists to say) and they were waiting for a worker's revolution to happen spontaneously within SA.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 18, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Actually was thinking more about the staying behind afterwards and taking votesas if the meeting was still going on...



Could you be referring to the millies in the eighties?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 18, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Could you be referring to the millies in the eighties?



we would love to be a bit more specific...

(its all knowing looks and nudges on these boards isn't it?)


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> I do believe that that is another myth, tho a highly believable one.  Even the RCp never actually said that...



I knew of self described "anarchists" who argued exactly the same point.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Oct 18, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> That's all they ever did. I can't count the number of meetings I attended where there wasn't some Furedi arse-licker sticking his/her oar in. But if you tried to pin them down and they'd pass you to one of their fellow supporters..and so it would go. They refused to support the anti-Apartheid Movement because it was "middle class" (an odd thing for a bunch of middle class pseudo-Marxists to say) and they were waiting for a worker's revolution to happen spontaneously within SA.




And people wonder why the left has died.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2007)

Linda Smith has recalled the National Council for the 28th - presumably to block the SWP using their old NC majority to fix the conference arrangments cmmtee in their favour as well as to see where the pieces have fallen after the last weeks events - or at least since peace broke out*.And it appears even Michael Rosen has woken up and is sniffing around wanting to know what's going on.

*


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2007)

The anti-SWP wing are playing their cards very cleverly so far. They have effectively hived off a number of prominent SWPers and seem to have their votes at NC. They have now (through Linda Smith, the chair) called a recall NC which, they seem to think will allow them to:

1) Put Wrack in as National Organiser.
2) Remove the SWP majority on the Conference Arrangements Committee.
3) Stop the election of tranches of student delegates, from student groups which the national office has no record of, or no record of membership fees from. This last one is going to be important.

If they do in fact have a majority on the NC, then this can all be done. I wouldn't be surprised to see an attempt to intervene in the Tower Hamlets fiasco either. Even if they do pull all of this off, I still think that the SWP will be able to out pack them nationally.


Respect NC:

John Lister, Oxford, National Health Emergency (Gallowayite)
John Rees, Respect national secretary (SWP)
Ken Loach, film maker (Gallowayite)
Linda Smith, Respect National Chair (Gallowayite)
Lindsey German, Convenor Stop the War Coalition (SWP)
Maxine Bowler, Sheffield, former election candidate (SWP)
Michael Lavalette, Preston councillor (SWP)
Nick Wrack, former Chair (Gallowayite)
Mobeen Azar, Leeds, former Respect candidate (Gallowayite)
Oliur Rahman, Tower Hamlets councillor (SWP)
Paddy O'Keefe, Brighton, election candidate (Gallowayite)
Shaun Doherty, NUT, election agent Beth Grn & Bow
Abdurahman Jafar, Newham, Muslim Council of Britain (Gallowayite)
Alan Thornett, South London (Gallowayite)
Berny Parkes, Dorset, former election candidate (Gallowayite)
Chris Bambery, Editor Socialist Worker (SWP)
Clive Searle, Chair Manchester Respect (Gallowayite)
Mohammed Naseem, Birmingham, election candidate
Elaine Graham Leigh, National Treasurer (SWP)
George Galloway, MP (Gallowayite)
Ger Francis, Birmingham (Gallowayite)
Jazz Khan, Slough, election candidate
Jeannie Robinson, Chesterfield
Mukhtar Kabar - Sheffield
Rita Carter, Lewisham, euro candidate (In SWP but nominated Wrack!)
Sait Akgul, North London, Kurdish activist
Salma Yaqoob, Vice Chair (Gallowayite)
Terry James, Cardiff
Tony Mercer, Sheffield
Veli Yadirgi, Day Mer
Victoria Brittain, journalist (Gallowayite)
Yvonne Ridley, pol. editor Islam Channel (Gallowayite)
Abdul Khaliq Mian, Newham, election candidate (Gallowayite)
Shiraz Khotia, Newham Muslim Alliance
Sarah Ruiz, Councillor Newham
Miriyam Scharf, Newham, Palestine activist
Carmel Brown, Secretary Liverpool Respect
Aysha Badjwa, Vice Chair, Tower Hamlets (Gallowayite)
Abjol Miah, Tower Hamlets Councillor (Gallowayite)
Jackie Turner, Secretary, Tower Hamlets (SWP)
Glyn Robbins, Chair Tower Hamlets (Gallowayite)
Mehdi Hassan, Youth Respect, Tower Hamlets
Salvinder Dhillon, West London (Gallowayite)
Balwinder Rana, West London
Tony Dowling, North East
Rob Owen, Student Committee (SWP)
Jerry Hicks, Bristol (in SWP, but nominated Wrack!)
Helen Salmon, Birmingham (SWP)
Raghib Ashan, Birmingham
Clare Soloman, Student Committee (SWP)

50 members.
20 original signatories to Wrack's nomination plus Searle (signed later) and Wrack himself = 22 Gallowayites.

2 of the Gallowayites, Hicks and Carter, are according to the Weekly Worker still in the SWP. Now that there is an NC recalled the SWP will be putting maximum pressure on the to recant. If they do that changes the numbers, if they don't that means more expulsions and more embarrasment.

I make it 11 SWPers (not counting Wrack, Hicks or Carter). With those three it would have meant 14 SWPers originally elected, which I am sure is too low. There must be another two to four or so of them. Please point them out if you can, along with any opinions on which way these are likely to swing.

Terry James, Cardiff
Tony Mercer, Sheffield
Veli Yadirgi, Day Mer
Shiraz Khotia, Newham Muslim Alliance
Sarah Ruiz, Councillor Newham
Miriyam Scharf, Newham, Palestine activist
Carmel Brown, Secretary Liverpool Respect
Balwinder Rana, West London
Tony Dowling, North East
Jeannie Robinson, Chesterfield
Mukhtar Kabar - Sheffield
Raghib Ashan, Birmingham
Jazz Khan, Slough, election candidate
Mohammed Naseem, Birmingham, election candidate
Shaun Doherty, NUT, election agent Beth Grn & Bow
Sait Akgul, North London, Kurdish activist
Tony Dowling, North East

At the moment 22 versus 11, with 26 for an overall majority looks like a dead cert for the Gallowayites, but a few things have to be taken into account:

1) There are definitely more SWPers than that.
2) The SWP may be able to whip Carter and Hicks back into line.
3) SWP members are traditionally more disciplined about actually getting to NC meetings.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2007)

doherty brown robinson - swp (not positive re robinson)
kabar, mercer, akgul - not swp


----------



## emanymton (Oct 18, 2007)

Shaun Doherty used to be SWP national treasurer a few years ago and I would assume is still a loyalist but you never know he may be supporting the respect three


----------



## dennisr (Oct 18, 2007)

KeyboardJockey said:
			
		

> And people wonder why the left has died.



<PRESS REPEAT> (you lot should start a wee mutual depression club...)


----------



## chilango (Oct 18, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> What incident are you talking about chilango



I don't know.

Just in the back of my head theres a niggling memory of a fairly well known (mainstream?) incident like this..


----------



## janeb (Oct 18, 2007)

Tony Dowling, SWP, would imagine he'd stick pretty closely to the line


----------



## chilango (Oct 18, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Could you be referring to the millies in the eighties?



maybe...but i genuinely can't remember.

I'm not trying a sly inference, but trying to jog my appalling memory.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 18, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> maybe...but i genuinely can't remember.
> 
> I'm not trying a sly inference, but trying to jog my appalling memory.



*helpful mode*

kronstadt ?


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Could you be referring to the millies in the eighties?



They were more famous for making Constituency Labour Party meetings so boring that everyone fell into coma or went off to watch paint dry for excitement's sake - and *then* passing their motions.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 18, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> I do believe that that is another myth, tho a highly believable one.  Even the RCp never actually said that...



yeah the tories didn't need the left voting for them in the 80s to get them elected


----------



## Dej (Oct 18, 2007)

Shaun Doherty definite SWP plus Mehdi Hussain another SWP supporter.


----------



## disownedspirit (Oct 18, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> The order has come down from on high:
> 
> SWP office email:
> 
> ...



told you the swp were going to get more democratic 
would you believe me...........


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 18, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The anti-SWP wing are playing their cards very cleverly so far. They have effectively hived off a number of prominent SWPers and seem to have their votes at NC. They have now (through Linda Smith, the chair) called a recall NC which, they seem to think will allow them to:
> 
> 1) Put Wrack in as National Organiser.
> 2) Remove the SWP majority on the Conference Arrangements Committee.
> ...




I think you must mean that Galloway has become a 'Thornett-ite' rather than the other way round.  Thornett has been absolutely consistent in his position for the last three years.  It was Thornett and Lister's resolution to the NC calling for greater accountability of elected representatives (including by implication Galloway) which was carried, and that was not in Galloway's original letter.  

Given his response to Celebrity Big Brother, I don't think Ken Loach would appreciate being tagged as a Gallowayite by an outside plonker either.

Anyway, since you have always thought Respect is such a pile of crap whatever position it takes, why should you care about who wins any vote - it makes no difference to your sectarian line?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 18, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Weren't there some on the 'left' who voted Tory in the 1980s, on the basis that Thatcher was so right-wing it would create (yet another..  ) pre-revolutionary situation.....




The RCP did not defend the NHS or the welfare state - that was why they were opposed to campaign meetings around it.  And they did not vote either, apart from the few occasions when they stood candidates and got a miserable vote.

What is true in ultra left lore, is that the CPGB students in Oxford in the 1920s and 1930s used to dress up in top hats and tail and go out and beat up some working class youth to instil class hatred in them.


----------



## disownedspirit (Oct 18, 2007)

are you sure rita carter is swp ?!?!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I think you must mean that Galloway has become a 'Thornett-ite' rather than the other way round.



The self-importance of the ISG is nothing short of hilarious. When the SWP let you front their Socialist Alliance takeover motion in 2001 that didn't mean that they had become "Thornettites". It meant that you were handy pawns. The fact that it was Thornett's motion that passed means nothing in this situation either - again you are handy frontmen.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Anyway, since you have always thought Respect is such a pile of crap whatever position it takes, why should you care about who wins any vote - it makes no difference to your sectarian line?



Everyone needs a hobby. I even paid attention to the Workers Power / Permanent Revolution split for fucks sake. And unlike that example, the squabble in Respect does actually have some real world impact at least in a few bits of Britain.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 18, 2007)

Raghib Ahsan is ex-IMG ex-Labour councillor ex-PJP and also one of the few left wing working class activists who built a genuine mass base (TGWU convenor at Rover Solihull in the late 1970s).  I cannot see him ever supporting the SWP.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 18, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The self-importance of the ISG is nothing short of hilarious. When the SWP let you front their Socialist Alliance takeover motion in 2001 that didn't mean that they had become "Thornettites". It meant that you were handy pawns. The fact that it was Thornett's motion that passed means nothing in this situation either - again you are handy frontmen.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs a hobby. I even paid attention to the Workers Power / Permanent Revolution split for fucks sake. And unlike that example, the squabble in Respect does actually have some real world impact at least in a few bits of Britain.



Piss off back to your potting shed you sectarian geek.


----------



## disownedspirit (Oct 18, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Piss off back to your potting shed you sectarian geek.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Piss off back to your potting shed you sectarian geek.



About the level of political argument I've come to expect from you.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 18, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> About the level of political argument I've come to expect from you.



At least I take it seriously.  A "hobby"?  Never heard such bullshit in all my life.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2007)

disownedspirit said:
			
		

> are you sure rita carter is swp ?!?!



Not at all. The CPGB/Weekly Worker says so, which doesn't mean much.


----------



## Macullam (Oct 19, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> They were more famous for making Constituency Labour Party meetings so boring that everyone fell into coma or went off to watch paint dry for excitement's sake - and *then* passing their motions.



O r for trying to inject politics instead of discussing dog shit on the pavements or who wants buggins turn as Mayor


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

Macullam said:
			
		

> O r for trying to inject politics instead of discussing dog shit on the pavements or who wants buggins turn as Mayor




So long as it was the 'right sort' of politics eh?  If it was gay rights or black self-organisation, they swiftly moved on.  

I can even remember a Millie controlled branch meeting where they tried to shut someone up who raised the fact that a local Labour MP voted in parliament to restrict abortion rights [the MP was selected with the strong support of Militant and they (rightly) saw it as an explicit criticism of 'the Tendency' because they never raised it as a problem;  debate on the matter was supressed by the Militant member in the Chair].

Militant played a good role in raising economic 'bread and butter' issues, strikes, wages, conditions etc, within the Labour Party, but anything that went beyond their then stereotype of what constituted socialism was dogmatically put down.  

Most economic issues raised were automatically associated with the need for the nationalisation of the top 400/200/100 monopolies and the election of a Labour government committed to introducing an enabling act ... in a re-run of the speech that everyone had heard a thousand times before, and by which point most people had dozed off. 

I must have gone to 200 Labour Party branch meetings in the 1980s and I don't remember anyone discussing dog shit on the pavement or buggins turn for mayor - it was far more political than that.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 19, 2007)

Macullam said:
			
		

> O r for trying to inject politics instead of discussing dog shit on the pavements or who wants buggins turn as Mayor



Dog shit on pavements is an issue though, isn't it?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Dog shit on pavements is an issue though, isn't it?



do you deal with the dog-shit problems of your neighbours and local community mk12?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 19, 2007)

No the council does.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> No the council does.



Its an issue though isn't it?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 19, 2007)

Yeah - one I expect people who were on the council (as SP were in 1980s Liverpool, which I thought we were talking about) to be discussing and doing something about.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Yeah - one I expect people who were on the council (as SP were in 1980s Liverpool, which I thought we were talking about) to be discussing and doing something about.




Indeed, but they may have considered other issues or slightly greater importance - jobs, services, schools, sports centres that sort of thing - rather than dog shite being a replacement for those issues of greater importance - which i think was the point the poster you originaly asked the question of would also make.

(I also think you already know that so cannot understand the point of your question)


----------



## mk12 (Oct 19, 2007)

That's fair enough - I thought macallum was suggesting that sort of thing just wasn't important and shouldn't have been discussed at all.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> That's fair enough - I thought macallum was suggesting that sort of thing just wasn't important and shouldn't have been discussed at all.



so, these expulsions, just terrible innit?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 19, 2007)

yes, yes they are. [divert attention away from SP]


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> so, these expulsions, just terrible innit?



Only if you think that continuing to paper over the contradicitions that are at the heart of the Respect project would be a good thing.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> yes, yes they are. [divert attention away from SP]



as opposed to [divert attention away from politics]

have you ever noticed me diverting attention from the organisation I am part of in the past when it is attacked mk12?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Only if you think that continuing to paper over the contradicitions that are at the heart of the Respect project would be a good thing.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Indeed fair point


----------



## mk12 (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> as opposed to [divert attention away from politics]
> 
> have you ever noticed me diverting attention from the organisation I am part of in the past when it is attacked mk12?


Never.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

lol Who was attacking the millies? Yes every single non millie who was active in the Labour party in the eighties hates them (or seems to), and many former millies admit what they got up to.

But so what? I actually think it's perfectly legitimate to behave in the way they did, if you are active inside a mainstream political party - they weren't there to make friends but to achieve political goals, maybe their behaviour contributed to their failiure to do that in some way, but it's a tactical issue not a moral one.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> many former millies admit what they got up to.
> 
> But so what? I actually think it's perfectly legitimate to behave in the way they did, if you are active inside a mainstream political party - they weren't there to make friends but to achieve political goals, maybe their behaviour contributed to their failiure to do that in some way, but it's a tactical issue not a moral one.



I agree with the second point - but what did they get up to exactly in your opinion? ie what behaviour do you mean? (do you mean Fishers usual diatribe? ie "chair 'supresses' meeting" guff


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> so, these expulsions, just terrible innit?



I don't understand - surely you support the SWP in expelling the Respect 3?


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I agree with the second point - but what did they get up to exactly in your opinion? ie what behaviour do you mean? (do you mean Fishers usual diatribe? ie "chair 'supresses' meeting" guff



My opinion is not based on personal experience, as I was too young to have been involved - however I do know people who were, including ex millies and they all say similar stuff to what Fishergate says and more.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't understand - surely you support the SWP in expelling the Respect 3?



i was just having a 'chat' with mk12 - continuation of dog shite discussion, just seeing what mk felt about the whole matter


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't understand - surely you support the SWP in expelling the Respect 3?



I do. It was their choice to support the structure and aims and principles of the SWP, they broke discipline and got kicked out. Makes sense.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> My opinion is not based on personal experience, as I was too young to have been involved - however I do know people who were, including ex millies and they all say similar stuff to what Fishergate says and more.



Fishergate argued:




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> So long as it was the 'right sort' of politics eh?  If it was gay rights or black self-organisation, they swiftly moved on.



Apparently we were anti-gay and anti-black self organisation. I would disagree. I think he confuses 'black self-organisation' with the uncritical 'support of token positions for careerists' that the organisation he flutters around like a wee moth argued for at the time. They lost the arguement democratically - again and again and again (so no crime committed by Militants there - by democratically I mean at natonal LPYS conferences of 1000s - so no 'supression' went on). 'Anti-gay' - well, the Militants did not see gay rights as the issue his freinds would have done at the time. They attempted to turn this into 'anti-gay' - it simply was not true. Agian these issues were discussed again and again and again democratically and that group lost the arguements democratcally - so no crime commited there




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I can even remember a Millie controlled branch meeting where they tried to shut someone up who raised the fact that a local Labour MP voted in parliament to restrict abortion rights [the MP was selected with the strong support of Militant and they (rightly) saw it as an explicit criticism of 'the Tendency' because they never raised it as a problem;  debate on the matter was supressed by the Militant member in the Chair].



Ah, the usual, 'recollections' of Fisher (he often does this...). Hard to reply when the actual example is hard to pin down. In Fisher's head this becomes 'shut someone up who is genuinely questioning MP on abortion rights' (a decade plus later...). As you can see its hard to reply in all fairness to the accusation without knowing the context in which things actually happened. But in Fisher's head it had become an "explicit critisism of the Tendency" - i can only say this sounds like a bit of fantasy on Fisher's part to me. He is prone to this. The idea of the chair (that is a single person) 'supressing' the meeting is the usual hyperbole from Fisher (its a bit like "Scargill 'intimidating' the miners out on strike" type stuff)




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Militant played a good role in raising economic 'bread and butter' issues, strikes, wages, conditions etc, within the Labour Party, but anything that went beyond their then stereotype of what constituted socialism was dogmatically put down.



Fisher is jolly nice to us here.. so i instinctively await the barb... ("put down", like "suppressed" is all part of Fisher's fantasy 'activist' lingo - all sounds very exciting and oppressive)




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Most economic issues raised were automatically associated with the need for the nationalisation of the top 400/200/100 monopolies and the election of a Labour government committed to introducing an enabling act ... in a re-run of the speech that everyone had heard a thousand times before, and by which point most people had dozed off.



.. and here it is, Apparently the Militants are boring. I don't think that is a crime  and the irony that it comes from Fisher, of all posters, makes me giggle. (Got ant interesting stats for us, mate?)

So again - what behaviour and second hand experiences do you mean mate?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I agree with the second point - but what did they get up to exactly in your opinion? ie what behaviour do you mean? (do you mean Fishers usual diatribe? ie "chair 'supresses' meeting" guff



I can assure you it wasn't "guff" - it nearly came to blows, and the chair shrieked hysterically at the person raising the abortion issue threatening to chuck him out of the room if he carried on raising such points.  We all had a good laugh about it afterwards, even her husband agreed she'd gone over the top, but it was nasty at the time. and, more importantly, would have been extremely offputting to anyone who'd joined the Party for comradely political debate.

It was however a rare event admittedly - most of the time they just bored other members to death, but it wasn't entirely out of character when people from the left tried to raise political points when they were on 'home territory' that were not central to the Tendency's viewpoint.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> Fishergate argued:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently we were anti-gay and anti-black self organisation. I would disagree. ...



So would I  ... because I never said that.  Just not enthusiastic about discussing these issues because it diverted time from more important things.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I can assure you it wasn't "guff" - it nearly came to blows, and the chair shrieked hysterically at the person raising the abortion issue threatening to chuck him out of the room if he carried on raising such points.  We all had a good laugh about it afterwards, even her husband agreed she'd gone over the top, but it was nasty at the time. and, more importantly, would have been extremely offputting to anyone who'd joined the Party for comradely political debate.



If this happened - i would agree with you, it would have been wrong. My experience of (I think it was...) 13 years in the LP was entirelly the opposite - trying to raise ordinary (you may say boring issues like support for workers) was met by a barrage of insults and intimidation from the right-wingers who dominated a couple of branches I attended. The result was fresh-faced new members joining Militant on occasion so what went around came around i suppose. InLiverpool i ound meeting intense - it was an intence time - never undemocratic or intimidatory though and the Militants were in a minority on plenty of occasions




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It was however a rare event admittedly - most of the time they just bored other members to death, but it wasn't entirely out of character when people from the left tried to raise political points when they were on 'home territory' that were not central to the Tendency's viewpoint.



yep, "boring" - oh, well gives you something to blurt on about, 20 years later


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> So would I  ... because I never said that.  Just not enthusiastic about discussing these issues because it diverted time from more important things.



In Liverpool - were you said you were - would these important things have included the wee matters of jobs, services, schools and sports centres?

Again, I would say - i'd like to see the 'context' in which these issues were raised and the reasoning behind the folk raising them. Then I could either agree with you that something was out-of-order or expose were you are wrong - depending...

I vaguely remember the 1984 and 85 debates on black sections at the (then massive, as in 1000s strong...) LPYS conferences. All was had out in the open - the black sections supporters were (democratically...) trounced. One weird aside I remember was noticing that the people speaking against (not all members of Militant) were mainly black working class LPYS members and the speakers for were almost invariably poshly spoken and mainly pale members of the various wee anti-militant 'left' grouplets in the LPYS. The Militant led LPYS at the time had the largest black and asian membership of any left organisation but was vermently opposed to the 'black section' arguement and against tokenism.

Later we faced the open accusations of 'racism' in Liverpool - raised nationally by one of those voices and defenders of the super-oppressed the Mail or the Express (sic - I cannot remember which) 'backing' the token 'community leaders' (against much of the actual 'community', of course - I should have some inckling, I lived in L8 and my partner isa black scouser). Any attempt to divide the working people of Liverpool was admissable in the view of the the government and bosses of the time I suppose. Ther was the whole Sam Bond issue - a fella viciously and personally denegraded and attacked by both the right and its liberal echos both outside and inside the labour movement. That was followed through by the 'liberal' playwrites distortion of the Liverpool struggle showing the 'lefties' actively organising race riots!

The Militant has been viciously attacked for a long period on its supposed 'racism' (throw enough innuendo and insinuation and it'll stick enough to be able to have hours long plays on the matter accepted without a wimper from wet-liberal lefts like your mates) as part of the attack on the threat Militant represented at the time in the real world (as opposed to LPYS conference dicussions) - so i can be somewhat tetchy on the matter - especially given my own personal 20+ years of anti-racist and anti-fascist activity as a member of that organisation.

The thing is we haven't gone away - so neither will those lies so many people ignorantly repeat and accept as, at least partial. truth.

Sorry, am i boring you again Fisher?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> Ah, the usual, 'recollections' of Fisher (he often does this...). Hard to reply when the actual example is hard to pin down. In Fisher's head this becomes 'shut someone up who is genuinely questioning MP on abortion rights' (a decade plus later...). As you can see its hard to reply in all fairness to the accusation without knowing the context in which things actually happened. But in Fisher's head it had become an "explicit critisism of the Tendency" - i can only say this sounds like a bit of fantasy on Fisher's part to me. ...



The MP in question was Bob Parry - does that help place it in context?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> In Liverpool - were you said you were - would these important things have included the wee matters of jobs, services, schools and sports centres?
> 
> Again, I would say - i'd like to see the 'context' in which these issues were raised and the reasoning behind the folk raising them. Then I could either agree with you that something was out-of-order or expose were you are wrong - depending...



I haven't always lived in Liverpool.  My experience is based on various parts of the country at various times, including a lengthy stint in the LPYS in the south of the country.  Certainly in Liverpool. the issue of the sale of assets (aka privatisation) and putting the city in hock to the bankers were important too.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> At least I take it seriously.  A "hobby"?  Never heard such bullshit in all my life.



Taking the saying and doings of a couple of dozen self-important old men, like for instance the ISG, in any way seriously is a sign of derangement. For my part, I'm interested in the witterings of such half-wits purely for entertainment value.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I haven't always lived in Liverpool.  My experience is based on various parts of the country at various times, including a lengthy stint in the LPYS in the south of the country.  Certainly in Liverpool. the issue of the sale of assets (aka privatisation) and putting the city in hock to the bankers were important too.



How many years will you go on repeating this. We have had this out at least 3 times on these boards - and as usual you ndo not answer the points replied to but go on to the next one like a robot on auto-pilot 

what is the point of me going over it again if it is just for your gratification mr. "interesting"? You came across as one tediously, boring sectarian arse to me as a result of your 'interventions' 

and remind me again what you do now apart from you 'interventions' on these boards? are you just very bored?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> In Liverpool - were you said you were - would these important things have included the wee matters of jobs, services, schools and sports centres?
> 
> Again, I would say - i'd like to see the 'context' in which these issues were raised and the reasoning behind the folk raising them. Then I could either agree with you that something was out-of-order or expose were you are wrong - depending...
> 
> ...




I have never accused Militant members of racism.  Others may have, but not me.

I raised that they were opposed to Black self-organisation, which in my view was a wrong position. (one they shared with the SWP).  In my experience they were reluctant to discuss it in the Labour Party, when it was a live issue, other than a hostile approach to the specific issue of black sections (which was only a part of the wider issue of black self-organisation).   

The LPYS was a different kettle of fish as it was treated as a wholly owned subsidiary with an in built majority.  Many young members of the Party in the 1980s were not members of it and were generally put off by the boring meetings and propagandaistic approach.  2,000 people attending a conference

And I don't judge people's class or politics by their accent either, and neither should you. 

As for gay rights, I would hope we can agree that Militant had a poor campaigning record in the 1980s and rarely raised it as a discussion issue, but have learnt from that and the SP have an excellent position these days.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> So again - what behaviour and second hand experiences do you mean mate?



Oops not him then, the people who say about deliberately dragging meetings on to wear down the opposition, reconvening meetings after they have finished to have another vote, shouting people down, etc etc. As I said though I don't have a problem with that sort of behaviour in an undemocratic org like Labour.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I raised that they were opposed to Black self-organisation,



Why did they have a black section then? Unlike the SWP.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I have never accused Militant members of racism.  Others may have, but not me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Oops not him then, the people who say about deliberately dragging meetings on to wear down the opposition, reconvening meetings after they have finished to have another vote, shouting people down, etc etc. As I said though I don't have a problem with that sort of behaviour in an undemocratic org like Labour.



I've heard of this kind of approach. never seen it myself. My experience has been one of often having to be ultra liberal and diplomatic working with folk who have ready made assumptions about my politics and are wary of them - in trade union branches, nhs campaigns etc etc. Frankly, I sometimes think members of the SP tend to bend over a bit too far backwards to accomodate some idiots.

The initiatives of the SSP in Scotland and the original SAs in England and Wales say a lot about the SP/Militants ability to work very closely - and to avoid 'out-voting' for the sake of it or pushing federal alliances with other organisations - becasue longer term mutual trust building is more important even where the numerical dominance of SP members means that we could have taken the 'SWP' approach if we wanted to.

The Poll Tax and Liverpool campaigns were mass campaigns involving tens of thousands and millions in the case of the Poll Tax - but they were able to grow way beyond our own membership. Something that an organisation operating in the way you assume would not have been possible to hold together - especially when under attack from the government, media etc.

The folk who tend to accuse us of this tend to come from other left wing groups with a gripe (Fisher is still going on after 15 years for example) or from the anti-working class media


----------



## Macullam (Oct 19, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> That's fair enough - I thought macallum was suggesting that sort of thing just wasn't important and shouldn't have been discussed at all.



No just that meetings were used as councilors surgery's but with special access to party members to raise concerns about their own patch. Dog shite to the exclusion of any thing else.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 19, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> lol Who was attacking the millies? Yes every single non millie who was active in the Labour party in the eighties hates them (or seems to), and many former millies admit what they got up to.



One interesting (in the Fishergate sense...) to come back to on a boring night in.

The then enemies of the Militant hate them still which would be expected of enemies seriously made at the time of heightened clas struggle when folk made their choices, were exposed or proved themselves - but with the SWP it seems to be mostly their ex-members who hate them with a vengence (they seem to form the basis of the online 'anarchist' movement as far as i can see). Why the difference? or is it just me.

Got loads of friends who are ex-Militant and they are not full of the same level of bile and blind hate - just worn out or simply busy with everyday life stuff


----------



## cutandsplice (Oct 19, 2007)

I lived in Liverpool during the period and though I disagreed with a lot that Militant did, they made a better impact on working class people's lives than anything the SWP has ever done.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 19, 2007)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> I lived in Liverpool during the period and though I disagreed with a lot that Militant did, they made a better impact on working class people's lives than anything the SWP has ever done.



Those redundancy notices sure did.


----------



## Tokyo (Oct 20, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Weren't there some on the 'left' who voted Tory in the 1980s, on the basis that Thatcher was so right-wing it would create (yet another..  ) pre-revolutionary situation.....



I think it was the British & Irish Communist Organisation - a particularly right-wing Stalinist organisation, best known for supporting the Loyalist strike in Northern Ireland in the mid-70s - who nearly agreed this line.  But even they couldn't quite commit to it - perhaps because everyone would've just assumed it was because Thatcher held pretty similar views to them on many topics.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 20, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Those redundancy notices sure did.



I knew somebody who framed theirs on the wall in the office, to act as a daily reminder.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 20, 2007)

What I don't understand is if the Militant was so much better than the SWP in the 1980s, how come they are only one quarter of their size (if that) today?  

Personally I find it's easier to see them as having both positive and flawed points that mean that either can grown for a while, according to circumstances, but struggle to sustain themselves in the longer term.  

But I'm still in favour of having both of them in the same positive broader organisation of the left (and I don't mean 'SoLIdARity).  Forlorn hope at the moment, unfortunately, but one day ...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 20, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Why did they have a black section then? Unlike the SWP.



SWP did briefly have a sort of black section - it was called 'Flame'.  The thing is that neither group believed in autonomy - the right to take a contrary decision to the rest of the organisation.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 20, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> and remind me again what you do now apart from you 'interventions' on these boards? are you just very bored?



I do my bit to support the most successful left wing electoral organisation since 1945 that has made a real penetration into working class and disadvantaged communities - distributing leaflets, canvassing, that sort of thing.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 20, 2007)

> The thing is that neither group believed in autonomy - the right to take a contrary decision to the rest of the organisation.



Wouldn't that have contradicted the idea of democratic centralism?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Those redundancy notices sure did.





The snide distortion above is another good example  - like Fishergate - of one of those embittered other lefts who cannot let sectarian distortions get in the way of facts (15+ years later - now that is the bitterness of irrelevance) so have to come out with some lie learnt directly from the boss media. I have answered this snide comment many time before but it will not stop MC5 repeating the lies of Kinnock (what good bedfellows - fellow 'class fighters' - you keep...).

They would rather score a cheap (and false..) point to attack the Militant than support the best interests of the working class in liverpool at the time with a necessary tactic agreed by the mass joint shop stewards committee. You should be embarrased to call yourselves 'lefts' - in the case of one - you should be embarassed to have wasted so many years in an organisation that - when finally having the chance - handed to them on a plate - have so completely blown it. At least the Militants can look at the list below with some pride

These were not 'redundancy notices and MC5 "I am a sectarian cunt" knows that. if the Militants could have been accused of anything it would be a certain amount of impatience with irrelevent little feckers like this - pointing from the sidelines while doing nowt - and 15+ years later things have not changed for MC5  - same old, same old (and already answered on these boards by me patiently at least 3 times - hence the lack of patience on this occasion - at least 3 times)

You are a couple of shameless if irrelevant old fecks arn't you?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I knew somebody who framed theirs on the wall in the office, to act as a daily reminder.



Why is it the vicious slurs continue to be repeated decades later - not by the ruling class or their media (who have already done with us in their eyes) - but always from the same sources - do-nothing charlaten 'left wingers' wanking over long lost dreams.

My ideas have been attacked on these boards many times. Sometimes (rarely...) honest differences over tactics but from many of the so-called 'left-wing' critics, the cynical do-nothings, it is invariably the decade late repeat of the lies of the bosses press regurgated endlessly. And they always miss the irony of such an action.

Discussion I am always happy with  - but these snivelling cowardly shits - the internet gives them far too much space while reminding me how big a mistake the idea of any genuine new left formation coming from 'united formations' with these windbags is.

They love the 'idea' that others 'sell out', that they are the defenders of the 'one true path', this little fantasy is rarely sullied by expose to the real lived class (the one they would so love to 'lead') - with the internet reality can be kept at an even bigger distance. The Militants in liverpool, working alongside and with the working class folk of that city did not have the internet warriors priviledges.

The website of the victimised councillors shows what they fought for, alongside the population of Liverpool, and achieved (unlike the internet warriors who have achieved feck all beyond sectarian bitterness...)

http://www.liverpool47.org/


From the sirte:

Legacy of the Liverpool battle:

    * 6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
    * 2, 873 tenement flats demolished
    * 1,315 walk-up flats demolished
    * 2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
    * 4,800 houses and bungalows built
    * 7,400 houses and flats improved
    * 600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
    * 25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
    * 6 new nursery classes built and open
    * 17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
    * £10million spent on school improvements
    * Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
    * Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
    * Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
    * Three new parks built
    * Rents frozen for five years

That is why they were supported and why they were attacked (by the bosses state and media - not by these 15 year late sheep)


----------



## mk12 (Oct 20, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I knew somebody who framed theirs on the wall in the office, to act as a daily reminder.



As a reminder of what?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 20, 2007)

> What I don't understand is if the Militant was so much better than the SWP in the 1980s, how come they are only one quarter of their size (if that) today?



6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes 
2, 873 tenement flats demolished 
1,315 walk-up flats demolished 
2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished 
4,800 houses and bungalows built 
7,400 houses and flats improved 
600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats 
25 new Housing Action Areas being developed 
6 new nursery classes built and open 
17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation 
£10million spent on school improvements 
Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open 
Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget 
Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme 
Three new parks built 
Rents frozen for five years 

Please could you provide details of what the SWP has actually done for working class people in its existence?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is if the Militant was so much better than the SWP in the 1980s, how come they are only one quarter of their size (if that) today?



Firstly it is not a quarter the size (even if you ignored the international organisations - where the SWP oes not compare to the shadow falling from the CWI). It would be pointless arguing over fantasy figures - I think the best measurement is that of practical influence - compare the relative forces of the SP to the SWP and then ask the question. The SP actually has more key TU positions than at the hight of the Liverpool dispute. Or look at the role of SP members in the nhs movements nationally. Look at the role of SP trade unionists in recent successful disputes. Look at the SPs ability to play a role (not just from the sidelines) in a number of key trade unions movements over the past few years. I thought you considered yourself to be a 'revolutionary' not a boss statastian?




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> But I'm still in favour of having both of them in the same positive broader organisation of the left (and I don't mean 'SoLIdARity).  Forlorn hope at the moment, unfortunately, but one day ...



Any new formation of the left would not come from cosying up with the likes of you and MC5 or you respective organisations - it will come from the trade union movement and a new layer of working people - not the chaff of long dead battles (that most of you never even fought) that the limping old sectarian lefts represent. Not in the UK - weve tried that already and you lot have proven useless.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Please could you provide details of what the SWP has actually done for working class people in its existence?



provided quite a few careers for quite a few individual ex-working class members from what I recall


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 20, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> Any new formation of the left would not come from cosying up with the likes of you and MC5 or you respective organisations - it will come from the trade union movement and a new layer of working people - not the chaff of long dead battles (that most of you never even fought) that the limping old sectarian lefts represent. Not in the UK - weve tried that already and you lot have proven useless.



I pretty much agree, except I would say the TU movement needs to be rebuilt and democratised before a worthwhile formation emerges, and that we shouldn't underestimate the potential of community based organisations as well.

I'd also say that any worthwhile formation would not be a 'worker's party' but a federation of autonomous workplace and community groups that is willing to engage in direct action (of various types) in order to win real social change. Its main focus would have to be on practical work, while allowing space within and around it's structures for debate.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 20, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> provided quite a few careers for quite a few individual ex-working class members from what I recall



>deggsy< cough


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that have contradicted the idea of democratic centralism?



Not nesessarily (i cannot speak for flame or the SWP though)


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> >deggsy< cough



even he still defends what was achieved in Liverpool (and if a career as a local radio broadcaster is your idea of 'career success'). I cannot speak for his personal taste in suits or watches - but he did not sell me or mine down the mersey and that is what actually matters.

the ruling class love to personalise politics to the point of idiocy (the idiots being us if we fall for that crap...)

he did stand by the people of Liverpool and the fellow councillors - facing the same 1/2 a million fine. 

he also spent years being 'investigated' by hundreds of coppers for supposed fraud, none of which was shown to be proven - if only the state spent as much time on all the big businesses who don't pay a penny of tax but receive billions in 'economic development' handouts etc from the taxes taken from you and me, eh?

can I poke my tongue out at you now?


----------



## JimPage (Oct 20, 2007)

Very sad turn of events- the english left seems to be following the same fratricidal course as up in Scotland. As the SWP in a majority in respect- i cant see galloway lasting much longer with them.

Respect were the most successful left formation in england since 1950. Why on earth cant people see the bigger picture- and not follow the pattern of left splits/recrimination/expulsions which we are used to

Sorry to see Hoveman go, he was one of the few SWPers i have met i have had much time for


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> I pretty much agree, except I would say the TU movement needs to be rebuilt and democratised before a worthwhile formation emerges, and that we shouldn't underestimate the potential of community based organisations as well.
> 
> I'd also say that any worthwhile formation would not be a 'worker's party' but a federation of autonomous workplace and community groups that is willing to engage in direct action (of various types) in order to win real social change. Its main focus would have to be on practical work, while allowing space within and around it's structures for debate.



yep, I fully agree with the point about wider community orgs and should have pointed this out. I think many will be linked to the trade union campaigns by default though. For example, the RMT standing independently in london elections over issues of transport costs and conditions for passengers in the city

as for the name or form of the organisation - that will come out of its formation - we could not prescribe either way. but a wee point - would it not be a 'workers party' by default (regardless of the name) in the sense that the vast majority of folk who are presently not represented as the vast majority in this country - who sell their labour and are therefore workers ? i still think the most likely scenario would be an initiative coming from a dissident section of the trade unions - but I am open to whatever would help us all take a step forward


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> Very sad turn of events- the english left seems to be following the same fratricidal course as up in Scotland. As the SWP in a majority in respect- i cant see galloway lasting much longer with them.
> 
> Respect were the most successful left formation in england since 1950. Why on earth cant people see the bigger picture- and not follow the pattern of left splits/recrimination/expulsions which we are used to
> 
> Sorry to see Hoveman go, he was one of the few SWPers i have met i have had much time for




did you not think at any time it was almost inevitable given the nature and decades long history of the SWP 'working' with others?

And what do you mean by 'success' - getting elected??

The SP have already had its fingers burned a number of times (in retrospect...) when holding its hand out in solidarity


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 20, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> as for the name or form of the organisation - that will come out of its formation - we could not prescribe either way. but a wee point - would it not be a 'workers party' by default (regardless of the name) in the sense that the vast majority of folk who are presently not represented as the vast majority in this country - who sell their labour and are therefore workers ? i still think the most likely scenario would be an initiative coming from a dissident section of the trade unions - but I am open to whatever would help us all take a step forward



I agree that you can't decide the name before it exists, but I would hope that it would not be a political party at all, sure if some groups wanted to stand for election then good luck to them, but I don't think an electoral party is the way to go. And certainly not a Labour party mark II. By federation I just mean a broad alliance of groups united by a set of aims and principles that allow for a wide variety of approaches. With local and sectional autonomy.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> I agree that you can't decide the name before it exists, but I would hope that it would not be a political party at all, sure if some groups wanted to stand for election then good luck to them, but I don't think an electoral party is the way to go. And certainly not a Labour party mark II. By federation I just mean a broad alliance of groups united by a set of aims and principles that allow for a wide variety of approaches. With local and sectional autonomy.



the second bit sounds good to me. the first bit - well, i think you may be waiting a while for that, while i fully agree that a labourite electoral party is a waste of time on its own - one of the issues people raise already is the need for their own voice, their own independent representation - and that means standing for elections - even if it should not be the essence of that new formation.

I think the desire for 'our own voice' will be one of the factors in any possible development alongside accountability and democratic internal organisation (if it is going to have any chance of success). I think these are also big issues on peoples minds - so that bodes well along with the recent experience and false starts


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 20, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> At marxism she went over and took someones chair, when they objected she turned around and said "that's socialism" with scowl on her face. She wasn't too personable that day



remember 1982 julie waterson screaming at me and others at an anti nf demo  " anyone who goes to confront the nf will be expelled from the party" ( or similar) .. and she was partially true to her word .. the w/c ones were expellled the students were not!"


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 20, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> I agree that you can't decide the name before it exists, but I would hope that it would not be a political party at all, sure if some groups wanted to stand for election then good luck to them, but I don't think an electoral party is the way to go. And certainly not a Labour party mark II. By federation I just mean a broad alliance of groups united by a set of aims and principles that allow for a wide variety of approaches. With local and sectional autonomy.



spot on biff


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2007)

ok, weve done deggsy, redundancy notices, deals with banks, racism - anything else anyone recalls second hand?

maybe I should have my own forum to repeatedly answer the same things for the next 10 years?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 20, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> The snide distortion above is another good example  - like Fishergate - of one of those embittered other lefts who cannot let sectarian distortions get in the way of facts (15+ years later - now that is the bitterness of irrelevance) so have to come out with some lie learnt directly from the boss media. I have answered this snide comment many time before but it will not stop MC5 repeating the lies of Kinnock (what good bedfellows - fellow 'class fighters' - you keep...).
> 
> They would rather score a cheap (and false..) point to attack the Militant than support the best interests of the working class in liverpool at the time with a necessary tactic agreed by the mass joint shop stewards committee. You should be embarrased to call yourselves 'lefts' - in the case of one - you should be embarassed to have wasted so many years in an organisation that - when finally having the chance - handed to them on a plate - have so completely blown it. At least the Militants can look at the list below with some pride
> 
> ...



Get over yourself dennis. It was the stupid remark made by a previous poster I was replying to laced with a good dose of irony.

Issuing redundancy notices (or their eqivalent ) was a complete disaster and it's about time you owned up to that and learnt from it.

The poster also appears to think that the working class are always passive awaiting instructions from some group on high.

Personally, at present I'm a shop steward and to be honest I don't want to do owt for the working class. I would like to see them do that for themselves.

In reality, both the SWP and Militant have done very little for anyone in the grand scheme of things, although both have done their campaigning bit.


----------



## Macullam (Oct 20, 2007)

[
Issuing redundancy notices (or their eqivalent ) was a complete disaster and it's about time you owned up to that and learnt from it.

I agree it was a mistake one which we have acknowledged numerous times, although not a single worker was made redundant. However it is easy to snipe from the sidelines at a tactical decision made in the heat of battle in a situation when the political landscape was shifting from hour to hour, Most of the groups and individuals critical of the role of Militant will never come within miles of being in such a position of influence and leadership.


----------



## Macullam (Oct 20, 2007)

*more from socialist unity*

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=867


----------



## fanciful (Oct 20, 2007)

Frankly its history. Who cares now?
More to the point it looks like the National Council meeting later this month will be the day of the split.
The SWP having tried to stitch up the TH delegation walked out of the committee meeting, are now trying to "expose" GG as someone who hates them, he is a Stalinist, this shouldn't really be newsworthy, but they must now be worried about losing the vote at conference. If they think its close I'd bet they don't turn up.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 20, 2007)

Macullam said:
			
		

> [
> Issuing redundancy notices (or their eqivalent ) was a complete disaster and it's about time you owned up to that and learnt from it.
> 
> I agree it was a mistake one which we have acknowledged numerous times, although not a single worker was made redundant. However it is easy to snipe from the sidelines at a tactical decision made in the heat of battle in a situation when the political landscape was shifting from hour to hour, Most of the groups and individuals critical of the role of Militant will never come within miles of being in such a position of influence and leadership.



I wasn't having a snipe, it was more of a put-down  to someone other than dennisr and your good self.


----------



## JimPage (Oct 20, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> _did you not think at any time it was almost inevitable given the nature and decades long history of the SWP 'working' with others?
> 
> And what do you mean by 'success' - getting elected??
> 
> The SP have already had its fingers burned a number of times (in retrospect...) when holding its hand out in solidarity_



i hoped that the swp would realise that the realisation that socialists could get elected on a socialists platform like respect - despite everything which has gone before. hey compromised a lot when they went into respect- and i woul hope this would continue. i guess i was just hopeful that, for once, the left would not act as before, and to see that left unity is key to having an impact in our communities. i was wrong, i guess.


----------



## Macullam (Oct 21, 2007)

*Nick Wrack*

http://socialistunity.com/

Article from Nick Wrack previously published in SWP internal Bulletin. He knew all of this before he joined the SWP. What did he expect ?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 22, 2007)

> we must not give the impression that we always want to be in control


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2007)

How are SWP activists taking all this?

They surely can't be happy?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 22, 2007)

all getting busy on the SUN site. from Party notes;


> Petition - is this what
> democracy looks like?
> Some comrades are circulating a petition calling on the CC
> not to expel Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman and Nick
> ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 22, 2007)

The SWP is supposed to be in its pre-conference period. You know, that bit of the year when political minorities are allegedly allowed to organise. How precisely are oppositional factions supposed to form if members aren't allowed to approach other members who they think might be sympathetic?

The interesting part of the document of course is that it shows that the expulsions didn't stop an internal opposition from forming, and they may even encourage such an oppositio


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

I find it odd where they say the CC weren't notified about this petition. Why should they be?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

Because they're the CC damn it! 

Great strategists to a man and woman. _No fair! You didn't tell us your plans in advance so we could sabotage them!_


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

Even if the petition-starters had told the CC, they would have come up with some excuse to call them undemocratic.

One faction is allowed to exist all year round: the Central Committee.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 23, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> I find it odd where they say the CC weren't notified about this petition. Why should they be?



Who's signed it?
Who started it?


----------



## junius (Oct 23, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Who's signed it?
> Who started it?



Galloway started it. He's trying to create chaos in the SWP. And, so far, he's succeeding.

Until the SWP develop a political response to the Galloway faction, he will continue to run rings around them.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

.


----------



## Macullam (Oct 23, 2007)

*Defend socialism and democracy in Respect*

Defend socialism and democracy in Respect

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13331 

The last para is a corker


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

"He denounces members of the SWP as unthinking “Leninists” who listen to nobody but their shadowy and unaccountable leadership"

he has a point...


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

_" that will not make endless concessions in order to win votes_"

Fucking hypocrites!


----------



## junius (Oct 23, 2007)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/693/swp party notes.htm


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2007)

> Neither did they inform the CC they were launching a
> petition.



Beyond parody.  What kind of politics could ever produce the set of assumptions contained in that sentence?


----------



## JimPage (Oct 23, 2007)

This is probably now the endgame for galloway and his handful of councillor pals - i cant see him and his minority faction lasting much longer. I think the majority of respect has now lined up behind the SWP position. i think the only question is how many councillors stay loyal to respect- and how many follow galloway. I think respect will still have 8-10 councillors- and may even come out of this stronger, with the weight of the SWP being thrown behind it this time.

will galloway form a new party when he is ejected though?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

I think you're mad Jim if that's not satire. GG has rang rings around the SWP and took lumps out of them each round, big serious lumps, then he got those lumps to take more lumps out - by my reckoning they have the NC, they have control of brum and TH, they have all the key areas.

What makes you think that " the majority of respect has now lined up behind the SWP position"?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

I can't see GG being ejected.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 23, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> Galloway started it. He's trying to create chaos in the SWP. And, so far, he's succeeding.
> 
> Until the SWP develop a political response to the Galloway faction, he will continue to run rings around them.



Indeed, but it appears that Galloway is getting down and dirty:

This was his response to SWP members in Tower Hamlets just recently.



> Fuck off, fuck off the lot of you!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

His response to them doing what MC5?


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

The SWP has a political response but we have attempted to keep it within Respect as far as possible, the "Gallowayites" are actually a far more diverse bunch and unlikely to vote as a block in a debate. Galloway can line people to sign an email quietly (with the help of capable organisers Ger, Kevin and Rob) but has not been willing to follow through on his call for a National Committee (at least so far.) 

It seems more likely that an attempt is being made to push this all into the national press and bring the project down before it gets to conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

Is that the content of the political response?

 If you're such an insider who is GG going to expose you to? Or is it a pathetic attempt to pretend that it's the SSP all over again and scare the sheep into line?

Is this really the line being peddled inside the SWP - that GG is aiming to bring RESPECT down in the next 4 weeks?


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

I was under the impression I could put my own point of view forwards based on my experience.

I don't believe that anyline is being peddled beyond the fact that the SWP is committed to the continuation of respect as it was initially conceived.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13331


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

In the SWP?

Is that your own point of view then - as a RESPECT NC member and SWP member, that GG is trying to destroy RESPECT before conference and has planned at least two television exposures to further this dastardly aim?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

> We urge everyone to support our position that we need to defend Respect as a project that has socialism as a central part, that will not make endless concessions in order to win votes, and that stands up for democracy.



Levien - do you not think this is slightly hypocitical, given the fact left wing groups and individuals have stayed out of Respect because it did not have "socialism as a central part", and it in fact DID "make endless concessions"?


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 23, 2007)

Sorry urbs can not go into detail at the mo. However, clear that GG is operating events for the SWP to leave Respect. I am not SWP but this would be terrible. No building of bridges is happening, personality clashes being created.

If this goes the way of other left openings aka SA this will put back the left years. My view for what it is worth that the left needs to deepen its roots in the working class and broaden its links with others.

To say I am pissed off with GG and this turn of events is an understatement. Before other lefties clap their hands - what the fuck have u got on offer?


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

No matt, I don't. Not when the organisations to which you refer have as much relevence to politics beyond internet messageboards as many of those most hostile to the SWP on here.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

Again lev:

Is that your own point of view then - as a RESPECT NC member and SWP member, that GG is trying to destroy RESPECT before conference and has planned at least two television exposures to further this dastardly aim?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 23, 2007)

Their relevance to politics is..irrelevant. I was pointing out that it seems their criticisms of Respect _from the start_ have now been taken up by the SWP. It seems ironic.


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

It is my opinion that Galloway is unlikely to win a majority at conference and that conference (now run on a STV basis) is likely to return an officers group and NC that to a greater extent supports the vision of respect that has been put forwards by the SWP then the current NC and officers group. Those around Galloway have made it very clear they are unwilling to work with the SWP so I don't see what other cards he has left.

I hope I'm wrong but i'm sure George and do the numbers as well as I can (or more accurately Kevin can) and must be basing his political calculations on hard facts. Personally I think that your post else where of GG "morter attacking" the SWP before conference as publically as possible and hoping the ensuing mess strengthens his side is sadly a likely option.


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Their relevance to politics is..irrelevant. I was pointing out that it seems their criticisms of Respect _from the start_ have now been taken up by the SWP. It seems ironic.



Only if you remove the changing political circumstances and all attempts to analyse the situation in the real world. 

Everyone was aware this was a possibility but many recognised that there were (and still are) possiblities for respect to develop in a way that gives confidence to those fighting back and weakens labourism from the left.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 23, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> His response to them doing what MC5?




Galloway raised issue with a list of delegates, in which he said that 57% of the list were members of the SWP and was therefore not balanced.

He proposed that 2 lists for delegates to the Respect conference be voted on at a meeting arranged for a later date.

Those opposing the proposal said they would take the matter to the Respect National Council and started to leave the meeting saying it was undemocratic.

Apparently, at this point in the proceedings, the joint chair of Tower Hamlets Respect said he had no confidence in the secretary and that he wants to take her out.

George Galloway then shouted “off you go - fuck off, fuck off the lot of you.”


----------



## junius (Oct 23, 2007)

levien said:
			
		

> It is my opinion that Galloway is unlikely to win a majority at conference and that conference (now run on a STV basis) is likely to return an officers group and NC that to a greater extent supports the vision of respect that has been put forwards by the SWP then the current NC and officers group. Those around Galloway have made it very clear they are unwilling to work with the SWP so I don't see what other cards he has left.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong but i'm sure George and do the numbers as well as I can (or more accurately Kevin can) and must be basing his political calculations on hard facts. Personally I think that your post else where of GG "morter attacking" the SWP before conference as publically as possible and hoping the ensuing mess strengthens his side is sadly a likely option.



You clearly don't have a clue about the internal workings of Respect. The Officers Group is controlled by the SWP.

Think for yourself rather than babble about things you don't understand.


----------



## JHE (Oct 23, 2007)

*Vinny, ya gonna whack the branch secretary?*




			
				MC5 said:
			
		

> Apparently, at this point in the proceedings, the joint chair of Tower Hamlets Respect said he had no confidence in the secretary and that he wants to take her out.



Is that 'take her out' on a date or 'take her out' in a murderous mafia-like sense or does 'take out' here have some other meaning that I should have guessed, but haven't?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

levien said:
			
		

> It is my opinion that Galloway is unlikely to win a majority at conference and that conference (now run on a STV basis) is likely to return an officers group and NC that to a greater extent supports the vision of respect that has been put forwards by the SWP then the current NC and officers group. Those around Galloway have made it very clear they are unwilling to work with the SWP so I don't see what other cards he has left.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong but i'm sure George and do the numbers as well as I can (or more accurately Kevin can) and must be basing his political calculations on hard facts. Personally I think that your post else where of GG "morter attacking" the SWP before conference as publically as possible and hoping the ensuing mess strengthens his side is sadly a likely option.



Fair enough, if that's how you feel, i'm not at all sold on this SSP style he's gone to the press thing yet. Time will tell. But it's a very handy thing for Rees to be able to claim.

And just to clarify, i was saying GG was bombarding the HQs - a maoist tactic of attacking the leadership over the heads of the members whilst appealling to them to join him - and it's worked as far as i can see. The idea isn't to reduce the organisation to rubble, just your oppposition.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2007)

Democratic centralism + Galloway's aggressive personality cult + religion - never gonna work out well was it?

I've skimmed this thread, but not really got a sense of whether this is just being played out amongst the Wespect, ahem, 'elite'.  Has it become an open war at the average branch/mosque yet?

E2a: the reason i ask is the swp's line of 'respect being a party built on socialism' seems a bit risky.  If the implication is that galloway has been taking the communitarian line, there's a whole set of issues - around gender and sexuality for a start - that could open up between the swp and respect muslims.


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Fair enough, if that's how you feel, i'm not at all sold on this SSP style he's gone to the press thing yet. Time will tell. But it's a very handy thing for Rees to be able to claim.
> 
> And just to clarify, i was saying GG was bombarding the HQs - a maoist tactic of attacking the leadership over the heads of the members whilst appealling to them to join him - and it's worked as far as i can see. The idea isn't to reduce the organisation to rubble, just your oppposition.



I know what you meant and thats exactly what I think heis doing.  Unfortunately I believe he is playing for a split to isolate the SWP.  Fortunately I think most independants are against one.

btw - the SWP is in a minority on the officers group in terms of SWP members


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

They are now.


----------



## levien (Oct 23, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> You clearly don't have a clue about the internal workings of Respect. The Officers Group is controlled by the SWP.
> 
> Think for yourself rather than babble about things you don't understand.



Fortunately you talk a lot but say very little. I suspect my vantage point in this debate is far better then yours. What ever you think of my politics my analysis is probably worth opening your eyes just a little to see.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2007)

levien said:
			
		

> Fortunately you talk a lot but say very little.


Psycho Killer?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2007)

levien said:
			
		

> Only if you remove the changing political circumstances and all attempts to analyse the situation in the real world.
> 
> Everyone was aware this was a possibility but many recognised that there were (and still are) possiblities for respect to develop in a way that gives confidence to those fighting back and weakens labourism from the left.



Where is this recogntion in your posts on here - as a current NC member. 

And doesn't this outcome in fact undermine the whole postion that you took and instead confirms that of us who said that is exaxtly what would happen and what had to happen? Were we wrong? Were you right?


----------



## junius (Oct 23, 2007)

levien said:
			
		

> I know what you meant and thats exactly what I think heis doing.  Unfortunately I believe he is playing for a split to isolate the SWP.  Fortunately I think most independants are against one.
> 
> btw - the SWP is in a minority on the officers group in terms of SWP members



I said the SWP _controls _the Officers Group dumbo.

You're on the NC aren't you? How many independents are backing the SWP?


----------



## yourmom (Oct 23, 2007)

Well they seem to be carrying on in Preston according to this:

http://www.prestonrespect.org


----------



## audiotech (Oct 23, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Is that 'take her out' on a date or 'take her out' in a murderous mafia-like sense or does 'take out' here have some other meaning that I should have guessed, but haven't?



Only the joint chair of Tower Hamlets Respect would be able to answer your daft, but slightly humorous question.


----------



## fanciful (Oct 24, 2007)

I think you're deluding yourself Levien, just as your were when we discussed it after the NC the other day (doesn't that seem like a long time ago...?)
Now that GG has captured the NC, then the SWP's chances of winning conference are pretty well nil, he'll appoint Matt Wrack National Organiser, appoint a friendly Conference arrangements committee, and ensure tha the SWP's students can't turn the result on the conference floor.
Will the SWP dare risk turning up at conference when they may lose?
Personally I think unlikely, and so I think they may well split at the weekend, which also ties in nicely with the timing of this (unprecedented) editorial, don't ya think?
But what are the political lessons that should be drawn from this disastrous mess? It's that the SWP's abandonment of socialism in Respect, see L.German "the socialist alliance was too socialist", was a calamity. It was an ill conceived opportunist get rich quick, electoral turn that has won you little and will cost you a lot. As I think you're only beginning to find out.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2007)

Of course they'll turn up - you just have the same disease as lev but from the opposite direction.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 24, 2007)

yourmom said:
			
		

> Well they seem to be carrying on in Preston according to this:
> 
> http://www.prestonrespect.org



The wording of the 'motion' says "Preston *and* Lancashire".  That's quite deliberate.   The definition of Lancashire has been stretched in this instance to include parts of Greater Manchester as well.  

Have a guess at how many people in the photo are from Preston and not in the SWP?  You will not need more than one hand.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 24, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> If this goes the way of other left openings aka SA this will put back the left years.



"the way of the SA" was that the SWP joined 4 years late - convinced the majority of fools in small left orgs (and desperate for some sort of 'left unity') to vote with them to change the constitution so that they could control the organisation centrally - rather than the previous setup that ensured no dominance by one group simply due to size - and then closed the organisation down with hardly a whisper let alone a genuine discussion when they decided to launch Respect. (ie the "the socialist alliance was too socialist" line). 4 years of genuine alliance down the toilet - well done.

Chickens coming home to roost for years of opportunism rather than genuine alliance for the SWP?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 24, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> "the way of the SA" was that the SWP joined 4 years late - convinced the majority of fools in small left orgs (and desperate for some sort of 'left unity') to vote with them to change the constitution so that they could control the organisation centrally - rather than the previous setup that ensured no dominance by one group simply due to size - and then closed the organisation down with hardly a whisper let alone a genuine discussion when they decided to launch Respect. (ie the "the socialist alliance was too socialist" line). 4 years of genuine alliance down the toilet - well done.
> 
> Chickens coming home to roost for years of opportunism rather than genuine alliance for the SWP?



The SP walked out of the Socialist Alliance well before Respect was mooted, because they demanded their right to undermine any process of local selection by choosing their candidates and running their own campaign wherever they saw fit.  No one else was prepared to accept one organisation (the SP) had the right to ride roughshod over the rights of SA members to choose their own candidates when everybody else accepted all members of the SA should have an equal say in the choice of candidates.

4 years is also a bit of an exageration - even if it's true the SWP were "Johnny Come Latelys".  The SA only started contesting elections in its name about a year before the SWP joined.  The earlier Network of Socialist Alliances had no line on candidates in elections.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 24, 2007)

> ’Here in Preston and Lancashire we resolve to continue to work together in a broad, diverse, pluralist, united coalition of the left’



Is this a list of priorities?
1) Broad
2) Diverse
3) Pluralist
4) United and 5) a coalition
and last and by all means least
6) left?

Edit: Lavalette must be in a funny position - he's been idientified very closely with his "good friend" Galloway publically, and is formally amongst the reason GG was expelled from Labour.  But as a leading SwaPie he'll be under pressure to denounce the ego-maniac opportunist charlatan!


----------



## dennisr (Oct 24, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The SP walked out of the Socialist Alliance well before Respect was mooted, because they demanded their right to undermine any process of local selection by choosing their candidates and running their own campaign wherever they saw fit.  No one else was prepared to accept one organisation (the SP) had the right to ride roughshod over the rights of SA members to choose their own candidates when everybody else accepted all members of the SA should have an equal say in the choice of candidates.



I don't dispute the setting up of Respect after the leaving of the SP - but how were the SWP able to achieve this unaccountably? - Oh the irony - the SWP pushed through a change in the constitutional set up of the organisation - from being an electoral alliance where the constituant organisations regardless of how large they were, were able to choose local candidates rather than being dictated to from centrally. Far from being undemocratic or 'riding roughshod' the SP pointed out the danger of handing over of organisational power to the largest (numerical) organisation - something it did not want even though it had, previously been in a position to 'gain' from this (in terms to potentially 'controlling' the organisation as a whole).  Did you listen? The SP saw this for what it was - leaving the organisation open to being 'ridden roughshod' over as it was when the SWP decided on a change of policy.

Others voted their own say away - in some desperate fantasy that 'if we make concessions to the SWP then we will all be united and holding hands' - The SP was not that daft and walked away. And now you re-write history by implication with your hyperbole about 'being ridden roughshod' over - what a fantasist you are FG




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> 4 years is also a bit of an exageration - even if it's true the SWP were "Johnny Come Latelys".  The SA only started contesting elections in its name about a year before the SWP joined.  The earlier Network of Socialist Alliances had no line on candidates in elections.



How do you get to a stage where you can even consider a joint electoral allience - through years of work - rebuilding trust between individuals and organisations - refusing to allow one constituent organisation to dominate numerically. Something you voted away and then had to stand by as the SWP trampled over the whole thing, effectively closing it down. Where did your organisational "equal say" disappear to then? Gluttons for punishment that you are, you then go on to cheerlead this latest disaster - further trading principle (and genuine democratic rights) for positions (and not many of them) - now look at the results...

You said nothing at the time because your organisation (or the one you cheerlead) also saw the respect project as a 'good idea' - so quietly 'forgot' the manner in which it was imposed


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 24, 2007)

I have political differences with Nick Wrack, but I can't help but respect him after the work he put into keeping me out of prison during a three week crown court trial.  He seemed to have integrity, honesty and the ability to communicate persuasively to ordinary people.  I haven't started supporting Respect, but Nick earned my personal respect and a nice bottle of single malt from the encounter.


----------



## urbanrevolt (Oct 24, 2007)

The split is getting nearer every day 
Respect At The Crossroads
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=898

The SWP editorial is right but does a nice line in hypocrisy when they write socialists shoud make sure  "socialism as a central part, that will not make endless concessions in order to win votes, and that stands up for democracy"   

I think it shows that all the attempts at quick fixes have failed.  

We need to take stock, step back and begin organising on a mor fundamental basis in workplaces and working class communties (such as the Manchester Reissmann strike) against cuts in services, the pay cuts, attacks on our rights and communties, whilst having a poltical and ideological struggle for the basics of socialism: class, the need for working class control of struggles and society, the need for organisation, for equality, ideological clarity against homophobia. racism, sexism, a woman's right to choose all the things German saiud weren't shibboleths and for the left and socialists to co-operate in united fronts (of an ordinary kind) without coming to premature and evasive poltical agreements and compromises.

Details of strike in Manchester here http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=13340 \ and here http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1748


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 24, 2007)

Never before has so much halal poultry died in vain!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)




----------



## Zeppo (Oct 24, 2007)

I feel the politics of all this is getting lost in a battle of personalities and grandstanding - i.e. who can pack out the conference more.

There is 'an appeal to Respect members' petition doing the rounds. If u want to add your name go to respectappeal@gmail.com

It talks of re-establishing the democratic culture of Respect - draw your own conclusions. GG v SWP is like a poker game with waiting to see who blinks first.

If Brown had called a general election - Respect would not have been ready but would we have all this nonsense? Time will tell very shortly - news that GG could go to TV, with Crick and the usual suspects rubbing their hands. It is developing into a farce.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 24, 2007)

Galloway's on _Question Time_ this week.

Could be fun.


----------



## chilango (Oct 24, 2007)

is that going to be available online for those us watching from afar?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> There is 'an appeal to Respect members' petition doing the rounds. If u want to add your name go to respectappeal@gmail.com



Why would anyone add their name without seeking the text of the appeal?

Is this the SWP statement or the non-SWP statement? There seems to be one of each doing the rounds.


----------



## laptop (Oct 24, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> is that going to be available online for those us watching from afar?



Derr... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/


----------



## chilango (Oct 24, 2007)

It seems that the SWP are trying to mobilize their students to pad out (or accurately reflect - depending on yer pov) the numbers for the conference.

Now the SWP are experienced in this kinda thing as anyone whose been unfortunate enough to go NUS conference (and not been allowed to bugger off down the pleasure beach  ) will have seen...

Apparently this is doing rounds:



> "It was decided at the Respect officers' meeting of Monday 3 September
> that for the purposes of this year's Respect conference, members of
> Student Respect would be treated as members in terms of constituting
> branches in each college and university, and sending delegates and motions
> ...



What a soap opera!


----------



## chilango (Oct 24, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Derr... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/




Thanks. That's Friday lunchtime's entertainment sorted.

Ooh...you can send em Questions too.

Tinternet's mazin innit.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> I feel the politics of all this is getting lost in a battle of personalities and grandstanding - i.e. who can pack out the conference more.
> 
> There is 'an appeal to Respect members' petition doing the rounds. If u want to add your name go to respectappeal@gmail.com



What's the content of the petition?


----------



## JHE (Oct 24, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Galloway's on _Question Time_ this week.
> 
> Could be fun.



The chances of there being a question about the shenanigans in al-Respeq  are about zero.  It's just not an important enough party.


----------



## laptop (Oct 24, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> The chances of there being a question about the shenanigans in al-Respeq  are about zero.



Oh, I don't know about that...




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> this Thursday's programme, which comes *from Oxford*.



Wonder whether it's booked out yet?


----------



## JHE (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm told Oxford is the home of lost causes, but I don't think that's enough to get the Beeb to choose a question about the convulsions of such a minor party/coalition/alliance/lash-up/thingy.  We'll see...


----------



## laptop (Oct 24, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> I'm told Oxford is the home of lost causes, but I don't think that's enough to get the Beeb to choose a question about the convulsions of such a minor party/coalition/alliance/lash-up/thingy.  We'll see...



It's years since I watched QT, but if the producers choose the questions they were doing an awfully good job of giving the impression that audience members could stick their hand up and say what they wanted. I've certainly seen packed audiences. Will al-Wespec' have tried to corner the market in tickets? Will the IWCA have managed to sneak by them and get called to air their grievances? Tune in and...


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 24, 2007)

Butchers - appeal to long to write here but the crux is in the last paragraph...
"we call on Respect members to demand that the forthcoming national conference call a halt to this campaign and re-establsih the democratic culture of Respect. We call on all members to stand together in defence of Respect as a democratic, radical left wing project capable of mounting a principled challenge to New Labour".

Another statement from GG doing the rounds. The problem is I fear that those who have not been following the shenanigens of GG etc will not engage with the call to sign either petitions. It does not look like peace will break out, it will take someone to back off. Pride etc comes before a fall.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Butchers - appeal to long to write here but the crux is in the last paragraph...
> "we call on Respect members to demand that the forthcoming national conference call a halt to this campaign and re-establsih the democratic culture of Respect. We call on all members to stand together in defence of Respect as a democratic, radical left wing project capable of mounting a principled challenge to New Labour".
> 
> Another statement from GG doing the rounds. The problem is I fear that those who have not been following the shenanigens of GG etc will not engage with the call to sign either petitions. It does not look like peace will break out, it will take someone to back off. Pride etc comes before a fall.



Ta zeppo. I assume "this campaign" means GG's side and that it takes for granted the  truth of the SWP's verison of what this 'campaign' is. This is going to get messier by the day isn't it?


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 24, 2007)

Butchers - you are right about the campaign being GG and yes the rest of the appeal is the SWP version of events.

Come Question Time and the mess may hit the fan.


----------



## spartacus mills (Oct 24, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/693/swp party notes.htm


"George Galloway launched a vicious assault on the SWP and on "Leninists". This is a disgraceful attack on the party which defended him during the Big Brother episode"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Butchers - you are right about the campaign being GG and yes the rest of the appeal is the SWP version of events.



Are any of the signatories non-SWP members?


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 24, 2007)

Nigel - yes a number are non SWP. 20 signatures in all, of course quite a few of these are SWP.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 24, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Nigel - yes a number are non SWP. 20 signatures in all, of course quite a few of these are SWP.



How do you reckon the omelette is coming along zeppo? 




			
				Zeppo said:
			
		

> You can not make a good omelette without breaking eggs - Respect well may be better out of this.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Nigel - yes a number are non SWP. 20 signatures in all, of course quite a few of these are SWP.



The text is on Liam Mac Uaid's blog. There are also 108 signatories listed. 20 of them are National Council members. A large majority of the signatories seem to be SWP.


----------



## laptop (Oct 25, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The text is on Liam Mac Uaid's blog.






> *On the other hand. Or “let’s see what the button marked crash and burn does”*
> 
> <report of Tower Hamlets al-Wespec' committee meeting>
> 
> ...


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 25, 2007)

Omelette looking a bit runny. Kitchen staff are revolting -where is Jamie Oliver when u need him?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 25, 2007)

Sorry to return to the main topic, but I posted the below on a Green/Left forum, and it was suggested to me I might post it here too, for your information (or otherwise).  As you were.....

The current conflicts are nothing to be happy about--having ditched aspects of their politics to become Galloway's retinue, now that he has decided to dispense with them the SWP are belatedly fighting back, in a way that does not help their credibility at all, both in relation to their past political practice and hero-worship of Galloway.  As a consequence, Galloway, for his own purposes, is quite prepared to wreck the SWP.  Were the SWP being torn asunder from below by enthusiastic revolutionary socialists moving beyond their ideology from the Left, truly embracing Green ideas along the way, I'd be happy.  But that is not what is happening.

Mention has been made of some Respect components entering the Green Party in the aftermath of disintegration.  Ask not for something, that it may be granted--if Trotskyants enter as an unreconstructed entryist faction, they will cause more trouble than they're worth, and tarnish genuine Green Leftists by association.  Individuals seeing the light is another thing altogether.

One way of looking at the Galloway episode is to see it as yet another example of the personalisation of politics that so poisons political life today, and which (dare I say it) 'Leader-cultism' in the Green Party is another symptom of.  

There is much we can learn from the current sad events, but one thing we should be wary of is _schadenfreude_--I am old enough to remember (fondly) the demise of the old Stalinist parties like the CPGB & the eclipse of their epigones like 'Democratic Left'.  Sadly though, this did not result in a massive increase in influence for those further to their Left, and I suspect a disintegration of the SWP/Respect will not either.


----------



## belboid (Oct 25, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> Mention has been made of some Respect components entering the Green Party in the aftermath of disintegration.


by whom?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 25, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> by whom?



internal informal discussions--not with me, I might add.  Could just be kite-flying--but one kite I'd like to shoot right out of the sky...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

I thought they supported the Taliban?


----------



## newbie (Oct 25, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> One way of looking at the Galloway episode is to see it as yet another example of the personalisation of politics that so poisons political life today, and which (dare I say it) 'Leader-cultism' in the Green Party is another symptom of.



Politics is entirely about personalities, the issues just provide a backdrop.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

Is there anyone else who could have predicted this would happen right back when RESPECT was originally vomited forth into the world?

I've always maintained that the SWP was playing with social forces they did not understand, would not be able to control - and which were much more serious in intent than they were. I also felt they hadn't realised that _they_ were the junior partners in this venture. Hence their usual tactics and modus-operandi of controlling this monster simply would not work - as they've now belatedly discovered to their cost.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 25, 2007)

newbie said:
			
		

> Politics is entirely about personalities, the issues just provide a backdrop.



that is the way things are perceived--not my view however.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2007)

Yes, Its rather ironic that the SWP are now being stuffed by tactics they have so often used on other groups and organisations, etc, they should have realised the Islamists are past masters at such tactics and are playing a very long game. 


'I've always maintained that the SWP was playing with social forces they did not understand, would not be able to control - and which were much mroe serious in intent than they were. I also felt they hadn't realised that they were the junior partners in this venture. Hence their usual tactics and modus-operandi of controlling this monster simply would not work - as they've now belatedly discovered to their cost.'[


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 25, 2007)

It's like Iran all over again.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2007)

Well it certainly wasn't a joke for the leftists during Khomenis regime


----------



## belboid (Oct 25, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Yes, Its rather ironic that the SWP are now being stuffed by tactics they have so often used on other groups and organisations, etc, they should have realised the Islamists are past masters at such tactics and are playing a very long game.


those damned Islamists eh!

Shame, for your 'thesis' that it is actually the christian Galloway who is outplaying them.


----------



## newbie (Oct 25, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> that is the way things are perceived--not my view however.


fair enough.  there's plenty of room on the margins for the minority who want to pretend they can somehow wish (other) people out of the equation.

You can't gain influence by strength of argument alone, it's when, and how, and by whom, it's put that matters.  Particularly when..


----------



## dennisr (Oct 25, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Yes, Its rather ironic that the SWP are now being stuffed by tactics they have so often used on other groups and organisations, etc, they should have realised the Islamists are past masters at such tactics and are playing a very long game.



its not 'islamists' - traditional local opportunist electoral politics - the local labour and liberal parties have been up to this sort of thing for years in certain areas with a certain type of 'community leader'/politicians


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> Were the SWP being torn asunder from below by enthusiastic revolutionary socialists moving beyond their ideology from the Left, truly embracing Green ideas along the way, I'd be happy.  But that is not what is happening.
> 
> Mention has been made of some Respect components entering the Green Party in the aftermath of disintegration.  Ask not for something, that it may be granted--if Trotskyants enter as an unreconstructed entryist faction, they will cause more trouble than they're worth, and tarnish genuine Green Leftists by association.  Individuals seeing the light is another thing altogether.




You think this is likely?

My worry is that the Greens (quite rightly) don't have the "cadre discipline" or structures to resist a determined entry - what would we do instead to prevent it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> You think this is likely?



It isn't. The only group which might even conceive of joining the Greens is the ISG/SR. They are currently totally committed to Respect, so unless that disappears entirely or they are booted out they won't be going anywhere. If they did decide to join the Greens, well there's only about three dozen of them nationally and they are about the "softest" far left group about so I can't see that it would make any difference to you.

You are right that a determined entry by a sizeable Trotskyist group would make mincemeat of you, but there is no prospect of that happening ever.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> > It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## audiotech (Oct 25, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> Sorry to return to the main topic, but I posted the below on a Green/Left forum, and it was suggested to me I might post it here too, for your information (or otherwise).  As you were.....
> 
> The current conflicts are nothing to be happy about--having ditched aspects of their politics to become Galloway's retinue, now that he has decided to dispense with them the SWP are belatedly fighting back, in a way that does not help their credibility at all, both in relation to their past political practice and hero-worship of Galloway.  As a consequence, Galloway, for his own purposes, is quite prepared to wreck the SWP.  Were the SWP being torn asunder from below by enthusiastic revolutionary socialists moving beyond their ideology from the Left, truly embracing Green ideas along the way, I'd be happy.  But that is not what is happening.
> 
> ...



You're right, there was indeed no massive increases of influence in the wake of the collapse of the CPGB.

However, I disagree with your somewhat glib comment on the development and demise of the 'Democratic Left'.

I thought the project was a good idea -left, green and pluralist. It influenced a few activists, but it went off and morphed into a think tank before you knew it.  The triumph of Blairism and New Labour denied it a space and an audience.

Now, with the demise of Blair and the New Labour project, there is now a space for a left, green, pluralist alternative.

Galloway and his supporters will be thinking along the same lines, but it's clear no Leninists will be welcomed.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

The demise of blair and the new labour project?

And the DL was going well before Blairism - in certain repsects it was the forerunner of new labourism.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Galloway and his supporters will be thinking along the same lines, but it's clear no Leninists will be welcomed.


Exclude the exclusionists!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

Negate the negation!


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The demise of blair and the new labour project?


Yeah, I must have missed that too. When did it happen?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The demise of blair and the new labour project?
> 
> And the DL was going well before Blairism - in certain repsects it was the forerunner of new labourism.



Going well I didn't say. Good idea I did.

Marxism Today, in certain respects, had been the forum for some of the ideological (I use that word loosely) framework of NL.

However, by the time of DL, what was then seen was an attack on labourism by DL. They produced a book at the time. I managed to blag a free copy.

As for the demise of NL? I don't see much in the way of enthusiasm for the NL project in 2007 compared to 1997.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> As for the demise of NL? I don't see much in the way of enthusiasm for the NL project in 2007 compared to 1997.


There deosn't _need_ to be: the job's done and the NL project complete. Where's the drive to undo any of it?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 25, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> There deosn't _need_ to be: the job's done and the NL project complete. Where's the drive to undo any of it?



There'll always be political leaders banging on about a third way.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Going well I didn't say. Good idea I did.
> 
> Marxism Today, in certain respects, had been the forum for some of the ideological (I use that word loosely) framework of NL.
> 
> ...



Not going _well_, but going - i.e existing.

I don't follow your next point at all.

The last point - are you really arguing that new labour and its associated approach is dead because you don't see much enthusiasm for it? I can think of many things that there's not much enthusiasm for but which continue nonetheless. That's a straight up up question - do you honetly think that new labour and its agenda is dead? Do you honestly think that new labour was some self contained little project that existed then stopped existing? No continuites with anything else?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 25, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> It isn't. The only group which might even conceive of joining the Greens is the ISG/SR. They are currently totally committed to Respect, so unless that disappears entirely or they are booted out they won't be going anywhere. If they did decide to join the Greens, well there's only about three dozen of them nationally and they are about the "softest" far left group about so I can't see that it would make any difference to you.
> 
> You are right that a determined entry by a sizeable Trotskyist group would make mincemeat of you, but there is no prospect of that happening ever.



There is no chance of ISG/SR joining the Green Party.  Ever.  Period.  There's more chance of reentering the Labour, though that's certainly only a hypothetical comment and certainly not on the horizon in the anything other than the dim and distant future.

This does not exclude however joint work with forces on the left of the Green Party, which are likely to increase over the coming period as Socialist Resistance itself reorients itself as an explicitly ecosocialist current.

By "softest" far left group, I assume you mean "least sectarian"?   And there are about 100 people supporting SR, of whom about half are members of the ISG.  There has been quite a bit of interest in recent weeks, and given that Nick Wrack has described them as "the other revolutionary socialist force in Respect", who knows what will happen in the short term? Certainly those members of the SWP disgruntled enough to leave due to the current crisis but who want to stay in Respect, would be better off working with ISG/SR than purely functioning as individuals.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Not going _well_, but going - i.e existing.
> 
> I don't follow your next point at all.
> 
> The last point - are you really arguing that new labour and its associated approach is dead because you don't see much enthusiasm for it? I can think of many things that there's not much enthusiasm for but which continue nonetheless. That's a straight up up question - do you honetly think that new labour and its agenda is dead? Do you honestly think that new labour was some self contained little project that existed then stopped existing? No continuites with anything else?



I'm not sure of the first point?

Discussions, Marxism Today events - a forum to discus ideas on the left.  

I don't see the approach as dead. Declining a better word?


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There is no chance of ISG/SR joining the Green Party.  Ever.  Period.  There's more chance of reentering the Labour, though that's certainly only a hypothetical comment and certainly not on the horizon in the anything other than the dim and distant future.
> 
> This does not exclude however joint work with forces on the left of the Green Party, which are likely to increase over the coming period as Socialist Resistance itself reorients itself as an explicitly ecosocialist current.
> 
> By "softest" far left group, I assume you mean "least sectarian"?   And there are about 100 people supporting SR, of whom about half are members of the ISG.  There has been quite a bit of interest in recent weeks, and given that Nick Wrack has described them as "the other revolutionary socialist force in Respect", who knows what will happen in the short term? Certainly those members of the SWP disgruntled enough to leave due to the current crisis but who want to stay in Respect, would be better off working with ISG/SR than purely functioning as individuals.



Interesting.

Is ISG/SR a part of the new Ecosocialist International?

If GL and ISG/SR are both part of the same international, yet components of competing (and on occassions mutually hostile, hi DU!) Parties  - Respect and the GP, how would that work?

Do the ISG expect to mop up exSWPers in Respect? or is this more of a hope?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure of the first point?
> 
> Discussions, Marxism Today events - a forum to discus ideas on the left.
> 
> I don't see the approach as dead. Declining a better word?



I'm saying that the DL existed before NL.

And NL is not dead. You seemed to think that it was.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I assume you mean "least sectarian"?



judging from your poss over the last year or so where you can't wait for a chance at a dig


----------



## dennisr (Oct 25, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> more of a hope?



yep - thats my guess


----------



## audiotech (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I'm saying that the DL existed before NL.
> 
> And NL is not dead. You seemed to think that it was.



Declining not dead.

DL did exist before NL, but I remember even in the the final copy of Marxism Today and subsequent copies of 'Seven Days', DL's weekly paper, giving cautionary advice of the political shortcomings of labourism and the NL project.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

Declining? And your evidence for this is?

(And yes, demise means death)


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 25, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> Is ISG/SR a part of the new Ecosocialist International?
> 
> ...



Thanks

1) Yes.  An SR representative is on the steering committee.

2) There were four British groups represented in the new Ecosocialist International Network - Greenleft, SR, AGS and SWP.  They have their own tactics in carrying out work, but can collaborate together.  I don't see a problem with this - an ecosocialist network is not an attempt to build a 'party'.

3) As I understand it (as I am not a member), ISG are not working in Respect in order to mop up exSWPers - they are working there to create a wider regroupment of broad left wing forces in a multitendency anticapitalist party, as part of an international long term perspective.  Therefore their tactics are determined by the need to build a healthy Respect, not to attack the SWP and they do not primarily seek to tear away members from other groups.  However, if an exSWPer came to me and said "I don't like the SWP's tactics in Respect, but I want to remain a revolutionary socialist and don't know what to do".  I would say "Join the ISG - you can keep your state cap views, if you wish (there are state caps in the Fourth International most notably in the French LCR), you will find a relatively healthy democratic debate and internal regime that will give you a voice, and you will find a revolutionary perspective for working in Respect".  If they were still part of the SWP, I would not urge them to leave; I would urge them to fight *within* the SWP to call their leaders to account and reverse their disastrous orientation; as a broad left formation in Britain should include the whole of the SWP (and SP as well, though that is also difficult to achieve).

Hope that's clear.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> (there are state caps in the Fourth International most notably in the French LCR)



are they the ex-french SWP section? - we had or have a similar position with the belgium ex-SWP. The bulk of our walloon base was built initially from a group of ex-swp (IS) members joining us as a group with the obvious right to put forward their state capitalist views.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 25, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> judging from your poss over the last year or so where you can't wait for a chance at a dig



Robust debate about perspectives should not be confused with uniting together practically where agreement is possible.  In fact the two go hand in hand.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Robust debate about perspectives should not be confused with uniting together practically where agreement is possible.  In fact the two go hand in hand.



i don't think repeats of differences put forward in terms of the real 'other' side over the decade old Liverpool struggle (or personal reminicences about supposed dodgy practices apparently witnessed) are debates about perspectives. but anyway...

i'd like to see practical unity as you say - where agreement is possible so we agree at least verbally


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 25, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> are they the ex-french SWP section? - we had or have a similar position with the belgium ex-SWP. The bulk of our walloon base was built initially from a group of ex-swp (IS) members joining us as a group with the obvious right to put forward their state capitalist views.



I'm not an expert, though I've been told Wikipedia is reasonably accurate on this.

My understanding is that there are two groups from the SWP's tradition within the LCR, though it is claimed that the one that is formally affiliated to the IST  has recently dissolved - the website domain name listed on the IST's official list of sites appears to be up for sale.




> Socialisme International
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme_International
> 
> ...





> Socialism from Below
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_from_Below
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2007)

> 1) Yes.  An SR representative is on the steering committee.



That's what I thought, but I've only been skim reading the numerous GL messages on this....



> 2) There were four British groups represented in the new Ecosocialist International Network - Greenleft, SR, AGS and SWP.  They have their own tactics in carrying out work, but can collaborate together.  I don't see a problem with this - an ecosocialist network is not an attempt to build a 'party'.



This will be interesting to see how it develops - along the lines of an International or something more vague and ethereal. 

The electoral clash, and the EI's perspective on it, and electoralism as a whole will be intriguing (and hopefully useful).



> 3) As I understand it (as I am not a member), ISG are not working in Respect in order to mop up exSWPers - they are working there to create a wider regroupment of broad left wing forces in a multitendency anticapitalist party, as part of an international long term perspective.  Therefore their tactics are determined by the need to build a healthy Respect, not to attack the SWP and they do not primarily seek to tear away members from other groups.  However, if an exSWPer came to me and said "I don't like the SWP's tactics in Respect, but I want to remain a revolutionary socialist and don't know what to do".  I would say "Join the ISG - you can keep your state cap views, if you wish (there are state caps in the Fourth International most notably in the French LCR), you will find a relatively healthy democratic debate and internal regime that will give you a voice, and you will find a revolutionary perspective for working in Respect".  If they were still part of the SWP, I would not urge them to leave; I would urge them to fight *within* the SWP to call their leaders to account and reverse their disastrous orientation; as a broad left formation in Britain should include the whole of the SWP (and SP as well, though that is also difficult to achieve).




Hmmm. i'm a little pessimistic as to yer chances on these, but, hey, that's your difficulty, not mine.

I do think theat the fate of the SWP activists keen on Respect as a project will be an idicator of the Left's chances of regroupment on the Left's terms. Much as I don't think Respect can ever form the basis for that regroupment.



> Hope that's clear.



Reasonably. Thanks.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 25, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> i don't think repeats of differences put forward in terms of the real 'other' side over the decade old Liverpool struggle (or personal reminicences about supposed dodgy practices apparently witnessed) are debates about perspectives. but anyway...
> 
> i'd like to see practical unity as you say - where agreement is possible so we agree at least verbally



nothing "supposed" about the sectarian and "dodgy" practices I actually witnessed ... and Liverpool was hardly a minor event or test of its tactics for the Militant was it?

Anyway, as you say, at least if there can be some agreement then it ought to be possible to get joint action.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Declining? And your evidence for this is?
> 
> (And yes, demise means death)



That's a working class sixties education for you.  

NL on the up then?


----------



## spartacus mills (Oct 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> And there are about 100 people supporting SR, of whom about half are members of the ISG.  There has been quite a bit of interest in recent weeks, and given that Nick Wrack has described them as "the other revolutionary socialist force in Respect",



There's a revolutionary socialist force in Respect?  

Hang on, *two* revolutionary socialist forces in Respect?

Cool!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> By "softest" far left group, I assume you mean "least sectarian"?



No, I certainly don't.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> And there are about 100 people supporting SR, of whom about half are members of the ISG.



They only claimed 30 odd attended any part of their recent non-delegate based AGM, which I gather was bigger than the one the year before. I've never seen any evidence of significantly more than that existing, nor have they been able to sustain a monthly publication schedule for some years. That said, I'm not accusing you of being dishonest here - I'm sure that they can find 100 people willing to be listed as supporters of the paper for instance, so we may simply be using different criteria here.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There has been quite a bit of interest in recent weeks, and given that Nick Wrack has described them as "the other revolutionary socialist force in Respect", who knows what will happen in the short term?



I'd agree with you on this. I can see no reason in principle why Ovenden, Hoveman, Wrack, Francis etc should stay out of the ISG. Their political perspectives seem to be aligned. They'd even fit the age profile. I'm not sure how they'd feel about the ISG's (correct) position in favour of the accountability of elected representatives however.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> are they the ex-french SWP section? - we had or have a similar position with the belgium ex-SWP. The bulk of our walloon base was built initially from a group of ex-swp (IS) members joining us as a group with the obvious right to put forward their state capitalist views.



Yes. The entire Belgian IST group essentially joined as a bloc and are all, as far as I know, still involved. I think only a handful of them still hold state-cap views nowadays though.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2007)

I might regret this, but.....*deep breath*............ 


why does it matter these days whether some holds "state cap" (as opposed to other varients of the why did the Russian Revo fail) views within the Trotskyist moevment? How does it have any practical/tactical or strategical impact upon your groups?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> why does it matter these days whether some holds "state cap" (as opposed to other varients of the why did the Russian Revo fail) views within the Trotskyist moevment? How does it have any practical/tactical or strategical impact upon your groups?



Well about a quarter of the world's population still live under Stalinist regimes, so it's pretty clearly still relevant to some extent! I also thin that it is necessary to retain a rigorous and critical analysis of Stalinism and its monstrous political deformities if we are to avoid making the same mistakes as previous revolutionary movements. That said, I don't think that it is impossible for people to disagree on these questions and still work productively together in the same group. 

If I thought that our different critiques of Stalinism were all that separated the SWP, for instance, from us I'd be arguing for an immediate merger.


----------



## JHE (Oct 25, 2007)

The GG did rather well on Question Time, I thought, apart from his tediously kinky aside about smacking - and, of course, as predicted, the ructions in al-Respeq did NOT come up for discussion.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 25, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> The GG did rather well on Question Time, I thought, apart from his tediously kinky aside about smacking - and, of course, as predicted, the ructions in al-Respeq did NOT come up for discussion.



I think he was outstanding on Iran - and illustrated the value of having an anti war left wing MP to speak out such a key issue.  I disagreed with him on Scotland and a few other things, his comment on the referendum on Europe was ambiguous for example.  But all in all a good show - the SWP are crazy to say "it's him or us".  An alternative must be found that keeps both Galloway and the SWP in Respect.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 26, 2007)

Did he mention Respect once?


----------



## Matt S (Oct 26, 2007)

I see that two Tower Hamlets councillors have resigned the RESPECT whip, and accused the group leader of being an incompetent misogynist.... 

Matt


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 26, 2007)

Link?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2007)

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/20...ors-in-tower-hamlets-council-resign-the-whip/


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 26, 2007)

Interesting, if they're not SWP (which my close observation of them interacting with SWP members at a rally suggested) they are both genuine socialists.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Is it just me or does this whole thing feel feel like the sudden collapse of the eastern-bloc regimes? That same feeling of joyful relief at the welcome demise of something that had looked like it would be around forever - but tinged with the grim knowledge that the benificiary won't be the left?


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does this whole thing feel feel like the sudden collapse of the eastern-bloc regimes? That same feeling of joyful relief at the welcome demise of something that had looked like it would be around forever - but tinged with the grim knowledge that tthe befificiary won't be the left?



lol, I expect it's just you to be fair


----------



## Matt S (Oct 26, 2007)

Apparently another two councillors have gone, making four in total, and meaning that the Tories are now the official opposition in Tower Hamlets, not RESPECT.

Matt


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does this whole thing feel feel like the sudden collapse of the eastern-bloc regimes?


Rare for hyperbole to come from that particular quarter.


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

I nwas under the impression that OR at least was if not SWP, a fellow traveller.

Are the SWP councillors jumping ship?

What is Lavalette's take on all this?


----------



## laptop (Oct 26, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> GG ... tediously kinky aside about smacking



That's moderately interesting given who Strathclyde Police are going to be interviewing in the next few days and about what


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

Hmm...

I note that both Rania and Oli were signitories on the SWPs petition thats doing the rounds...

as is Lavalette. Will he now resign the whip?

As an aside, many of the names on the petition are of the most hackish of SWP activists...something that doesn't bode well for a happy ending to the whole affair.

How long to go?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

The SWP's online petition now seems to be turning into a census of their membership.


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

or, as put elsewhere, an "oath of loyalty" 

If its a census, then their membership must be well down....


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

Can you point us to the online petition?


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> That's moderately interesting given who Strathclyde Police are going to be interviewing in the next few days and about what



You must be talking about Big Tommy, the perjurers' pin-up.

The GG and Big Tommy like and admire each other, apparently, but they have never been photographed engaging in 'a little light spanking', as recommended by the GG last night.


----------



## laptop (Oct 26, 2007)

Ooops.




			
				JHE said:
			
		

> The GG and Big Tommy like and admire each other, apparently, but they have never been photographed engaging in 'a little light spanking', as recommended by the GG last night.



_Obviously_ not


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Can you point us to the online petition?




This is the version I've seen. It may well have gathered "momentum" since then.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> ...
> as is Lavalette. Will he now resign the whip?
> ...



There is no Respect whip in Preston as Lavalette is the sole councillor.


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There is no Respect whip in Preston as Lavalette is the sole councillor.



*slaps head* doh!


...but what (if anything) will he do?


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> This is the version I've seen. It may well have gathered "momentum" since then.



Ta.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> This is the version I've seen. It may well have gathered "momentum" since then.



http://swp.org.uk/respect_appeal.php

The up to date appeal is at the above link. It's currently at 476 signatories, and I'd be surprised if more than 10% are non-SWP.


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

The East London Advertiser has a report of the resignation of the al-Respeq whip by councillors Oliur Rahman, Lutfa Begum, Rania Khan and Ahmed Hussain.

*'Bengali Tigers' maul Galloway's Respect party*

26 October 2007 
EXCLUSIVE

By Ted Jeory


GEORGE Galloway's Respect party has been thrown into turmoil after four of his Tower Hamlets councillors resigned the whip to become independents.

The four include Oliur Rahman, who became the Respect's first councillor in 2004.

The others are Lutfa Begum, her daughter Rania Khan and Ahmed Hussain, one of the most talented of the group of 12 that were elected in May last year.

Respect's dozen "Bengali tigers", as Mr Galloway triumphantly described them 18 months ago, have now been whittled down to a rump of seven.

Wais Islam defected to Labour earlier this year and although Shamim Cowdhury quit as a councillor in July, the party retained his seat at the Shadwell by-election.

The four, who will remain party members, launched a stinging attack on group leader Abjol Miah. 

The latest developments come just a couple of weeks after the move was predicted by the Advertiser.

The decision by the gang of four-and more may follow-came after series of meetings, the latest on Wednesday night.

The four have decided to remain as 'loyal' party members, but they are engaged in a battle for the soul of the party.

They are more closely aligned with the Socialist Workers Party wing of Respect which is on the brink of a split after lengthy rows with Mr Galloway and Tower Hamlets Respect group leader Cllr Abjol Miah.

Oli Rahman failed to oust Cllr Miah as leader earlier this year; since then the two have barely talked.

In a statement last night (Wednesday), the four stated: "We have decided to resign the Respect group whip with immediate effect. 

"We remain loyal Respect members and we will pursue in the council chambers and the community the original policies and principles on which Respect was founded. 

"Cllr Abjol Miah has over an extended period now has failed to demonstrate the basic qualities and competencies essential for the post of group and Opposition leader. 

"His approach and conduct have been detrimental to the spirit of a united coalition that brings together a range of group and individuals of different background and political persuasions."

In a separate statement, Cllr Rahman said: "It is particularly sad for me that after repeated attempt to find a reasonable way forward, our efforts have been treated with disdain. We regret that it has come to this stage where we feel compelled to resign the whip.​
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED26 Oct 2007 10:49:04:830


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> http://swp.org.uk/respect_appeal.php
> 
> The up to date appeal is at the above link. It's currently at 476 signatories, and I'd be surprised if more than 10% are non-SWP.



Of course all signing as Respect, rather than SWP, members.

Now surely the SWP should be good at petitions...problem is a contact list of their own members is a bit pointless, no?

Only 476? Either the SWP don't have more than a few hundred active members, or there is far from a unified enthusiam for the leadership's position on this.

Either way, it makes the SWP look pretty poor.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> This is the version I've seen. It may well have gathered "momentum" since then.



It's also here.
http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_appeal.php
It's one sided and doesn't call on the SWP to back off, so I won't be signing it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Only 476? Either the SWP don't have more than a few hundred active members, or there is far from a unified enthusiam for the leadership's position on this.



It is a curiously low number, given that it has apparently been circulating for some days now. Just how low it is in the circumstances would seem to depend on how much offline organisation the SWP has been doing for this. If they've been ringing round members "encouraging" them to to agree to have their names on it then it is very poor. If it's purely an online thing, then the numbers don't reveal all that much either way.


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Of course all signing as Respect, rather than SWP, members.
> 
> Now surely the SWP should be good at petitions...problem is a contact list of their own members is a bit pointless, no?
> 
> ...



Even so, 476+ is a sizable chunk of the al-Respeq membership, isn't it?  What is the claimed membership of the now stricken Islamo-Trot lash-up?  2000?  3000?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Even so, 476+ is a sizable chunk of the al-Respeq membership, isn't it?  What is the claimed membership of the now stricken Islamo-Trot lash-up?  2000?  3000?



476 would have been a very sizeable chunk of the Respect membership a couple of months ago. None of us know how big the formal membership of Respect is after any sudden pre-delegate selection recruitment drives. Also it hasn't yet been determined what the status of Student Respect groups is. We also can't know how many of the 476 are currently paid up Respect members.


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> We also can't know how many of the 476 are currently paid up Respect members.



Quite.

But if the SWP control a sizeable enough chunk of Respect, how come they can't manage to lash up the NC without all this nonsense?

...and if there's only 2 - 3000 in respect where are the rest of the SWP's 5- 10 000 claimed members?

It looks like a reality check is heading into the public domain.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Christ, I'm enjoying this. Too funny for words!


----------



## junius (Oct 26, 2007)

Probably a significant amount of SWPers are not paid up members of Respect.

In any case  many SWP 'members' are inactive - signing it might mean the treasurer comes around to collect those dues that haven't been paid for 5 years.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2007)

two, or possibly three, of the sheffield signatories are not SWP - out of 15. the only interesting name on the whole list is valerie wise


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> two, or possibly three, of the sheffield signatories are not SWP - out of 15. the only interesting name on the whole list is valerie wise



Why is she of interest - isn't she effectively off the scene anyway?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2007)

most notable name anyone might possibly have heard of, not from the swp


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> most notable name anyone might possibly have heard of, not from the swp



I'd have thought that the current councillors who've signed are a bit more significant in terms of how this will play out, rather than an ex-councillor with a mixed record. It's difficult to know how many of them are SWP though - three certainly are, while the other three are close but may or may not be members. 

The SWP seem to have adopted the old Lambertist practice of having undeclared members in positions of (modest) influence.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 26, 2007)

Val Wise is Not very interesting.  She's exactly the kind of non-aligned individual that the SWP like to flatter the ego of to keep onside.  Don't see many muslims from the Preston side of things on here (Mukhtar not signing?), just the usual suspects (Laura - isn't that Lavalette's missus?, Coochie   and that laughable hack Mulcahy are on there)


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 26, 2007)

the SW petition is a staggering sign of weakness that said GG's side is doing the same but with less vitriol in their statement.

It's a look who has got more numbers la la. The Chartists had thousands on their petitions and where did it get them?

I said it in previous posts someone has to back down. If the SWP leave Respect - they will lose a lot inc face. Respect will carry on. Some SWPers think Respect will collapse - it won't - where will the SWP go. Certainly not to the Campaign for a Workers Party which looks doomed nor the CPGB campaign for a Marxist Party.

My advice to the SWP is get real but then again who listens?


----------



## JimPage (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> _Of course all signing as Respect, rather than SWP, members.
> 
> Only 476? Either the SWP don't have more than a few hundred active members, or there is far from a unified enthusiam for the leadership's position on this.
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> chilango said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> The SWP have 5,700 members,



"The SWP claim 5,000 plus members" does not equal "The SWP has 5,000 plus members". Still less does it equal "The SWP has 5,000 plus members who can be mobilised to join Respect and vote the way they are told".




			
				JimPage said:
			
		

> most of whom I predict will be joining respect to oust Galloways lot very soon.



As pointed out above, while the SWP do potentially have more voting fodder than Galloway, they do not have the kind of numbers you are assuming. What's more, as I understand it, it is now too late to register new members for the purposes of conference delegations.




			
				JimPage said:
			
		

> No idea of the tactical benefit for the SWP of the SWP and pro SWP Tower Hamlets councillors in resigning though?



I am a bit surprised by that myself. Maybe it was a decision taken on the ground when feelings were running high. I can't see how it helps the SWP to be seen to be screwing over Respect's biggest councillor group or to be sending press releases out attacking the group leader. It might be another own-goal.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 26, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> http://swp.org.uk/respect_appeal.php
> 
> The up to date appeal is at the above link. It's currently at 476 signatories.


Take a look at number 20 then number 425  

And yes i read the wole list, I'm that sad


----------



## mk12 (Oct 26, 2007)

Judging by the descriptions those people have written, there isn't one member of the SWP who has signed the petition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Take a look at number 20 then number 425



Well spotted. 

475 it is.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 26, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> two, or possibly three, of the sheffield signatories are not SWP - out of 15. the only interesting name on the whole list is valerie wise


Yes I spotted that but she is a big respect supporter, (queue fishergate to tell me I’m wrong). Going from that list Preston respect is more or less backing the SWP FG notwithstanding.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 26, 2007)

can hear it now



> Failure to follow Comrade Ashraf's inspiring lead and commence self-cloning will result in immediate expulsion...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Judging by the descriptions those people have written, there isn't one member of the SWP who has signed the petition.



Actually, there are two.


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Take a look at number 20 then number 425



Sign early, sign often!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Going from that list Preston respect is more or less backing the SWP FG notwithstanding.



Only if Preston Respect, one of the "success stories", has 11 members, only one of whom is of Asian background.


----------



## yourmom (Oct 26, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Take a look at number 20 then number 425
> 
> And yes i read the wole list, I'm that sad


ooh....


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Take a look at number 20 then number 425
> 
> And yes i read the wole list, I'm that sad



heh heh  

does that invalidate the whole thing?

who's going to point it out to Galloway?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 26, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Going from that list Preston respect is more or less backing the SWP FG notwithstanding.



err...except that - as yet - barely any muslims from Preston appear to have signed.  Might be a coincidence?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 26, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Only if Preston Respect, one of the "success stories", has 11 members, only one of whom is of Asian background.


Well I was thinking that Preston RESPECT while one of the success stories is probably still much smaller than RESPECT in the bigger cities so proportionally they seem to be doing quite well and I think only about half of the signatures from Preston are SWP and Val Wise is the sort of independent I could see backing Galloway Interesting point about the lack of Asian names though.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 26, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> This is the version I've seen. It may well have gathered "momentum" since then.



They love a petition, don't they.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2007)

About 20 of them names are just RESPECT 'supporters' - surely non-members should not be signing?


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2007)

Do you reckon a "plague on both yer houses" petition would get more than  475 signatures?


----------



## laptop (Oct 26, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> About 20 of them names are just RESPECT 'supporters' - surely non-members should not be signing?



I've always assumed that anyone who signs anything as an "X supporter" is a member of the SWP intervening in X, which is an SWP front group (or one they hope to control).




As you well know


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2007)

Such cynicism!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

According to a post on the Socialist Unity blog Jerry Hicks has resigned from the SWP. Imagine the reactions you'd have gotten from SWPers a year ago if you'd told them that within a year Hoveman, Wrack, Ovenden and Francis would be expelled and Hicks, Bird and others would have resigned...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> According to a post on the Socialist Unity blog Jerry Hicks has resigned from the SWP. Imagine the reactions you'd have gotten from SWPers a year ago if you'd told them that within a year Hoveman, Wrack, Ovenden and Francis would be expelled and Hicks, Bird and others would have resigned...



Hicks' resignation letter is dynamite.
-------------------------------------------------
To the SWP Central Committee and membership: From Jerry Hicks:

Respect is in crisis. How did we arrive at where we are now?

Was it George Galloway's letter sent out on 23rd August 2007 to all Respect National Council members stating some observations, expressing some criticisms and making some suggestions? Or was it the hysterical reaction by the SWP leadership in the weeks that followed? Despite apocalyptical warnings and assertions of "no capitulation" in the SWP road shows that took place in September, virtually all of Galloway's solutions were agreed but only after weeks of vile and damaging blood letting.

On receiving the letter of August 23rd there were two ways of dealing with it. We had a choice to defuse or to ignite. We, i.e. the SWP leadership, chose to do the latter and have been fanning the flames ever since.

I attended the Respect National Council meeting 22nd September 2007 where it became evident for the first time to the overwhelming majority of the council that there have been very serious and deeply disturbing problems for nearly two years.

Every end has a beginning and a number of soul searching questions need to be asked.

As the SWP is by far the single largest organisation in Respect, should it not then shoulder the greatest responsibility to ensure that Respect not only survives but grows, flourishes and prospers?

How can it be that the national Respect membership numbers only 2500 when the SWP membership is nearly 6000. Obviously fewer than a 1/3 of the SWP membership are even in Respect?

When was the last time we as individual members of the SWP took part in a campaign or union activity and identified ourselves as Respect?

When did we bring anyone - friend, family, colleague or supporter of a campaign that we are involved in to Respect events or activities?

When was the last time as an individual we recruited or even asked anyone to join Respect?

Who is responsible for allowing this when the official line is that the SWP throws its full weight behind Respect?

Why have so many SWP members not even joined Respect yet are called to go to meetings around the country to discuss Respect and are now  being urged to join Respect and to get delegated to Respect conference! See email below sent out on the 17th October 2007

RESPECT ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The Respect annual conference is going to be very important this year. We are urging comrades do the following:

You can only get delegated to Respect conference if you are a registered member. You MUST be a paid-up member by THIS FRIDAY, 19 October .Deadline for resolutions is Friday 19 October.
Deadline for the election of delegates is Sunday 4 November. Once again we are urging as many SWP members as possible to get elected to the Respect Conference. If you have any questions please contact John Rees or the SWP National Office. Martin Smith, SWP National Organiser.


We, in the SWP also need to ask ourselves the following questions.

Did we play any part in reaching this disastrous situation or is it all due to George Galloway¹s letter of August 23rd 2007? When did it all start to go wrong? Was it August 23rd or long before that?

Who or how many knew of the issues? Why was there no debate or discussion within the SWP or Respect National Council immediately problems began to arise to try to resolve the differences and thereby avoid being where we are now?

In my view the responsibility rests with the SWP leadership for this situation of crisis to have been developing over many months, even years, whilst in the SWP we were told nothing.

Is Bristol different and is this only a London thing?

Lots of people in Bristol Respect have done lots of things but we only stood for one council seat in this year¹s May elections. Let's ask ourselves why. Was it because we had grown? Was it because we did not want to stand in any other ward?

Or, was it in part because not enough people in the SWP in Bristol had either joined Respect or done one single thing to help Respect?

Whilst we might not have the upheaval of Tower Hamlets, our own Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 27th September 2007 was almost ruined by our full time SWP organiser who wanted to call all the SWP members out of the room 5 minutes before the AGM was due to start, leaving non SWP Respect members (a third of the meeting) sat there not knowing what the hell was going on.

That potential disaster was averted because I refused to let it happen, but it would have without my intervention. Who would bet that this is not happening elsewhere.

Galloway was and is a maverick, warts and all. We all knew this. I am not making excuses just stating the blindingly obvious.

The Big Brother experience was considered by many a mistake but his performance before the US Senate was unrivalled and made the name of Respect known across the globe.

To describe Galloway as right wing is farcical. To vilify him and demonise him as the enemy beggars belief.

The 27 members of the Respect National Council who are also critical of the SWP do not represent a "Galloway faction" as is being presented, nor are any of them right wing or witch hunters as we are being asked to believe. They include people like Ken Loach, Linda Smith, Victoria Brittain, Salma Yaqoob and Yvonne Ridley. They are all socialists, they are all remarkable people in their own right and they are all senior members of Respect.  

I feel that our SWP leadership has created an atmosphere where an observation made is described as a criticism, where any criticism is taken as an attack which is transposed as being 'right wing'.

Are we really supposed to believe that we were in an 'all or nothing', 'them and us'  situation where everything we the SWP say must be true and that everything the 'other side' says must be lies. Everything we the SWP do is right but everything they do is wrong!

Frankly, as in life or politics this is ludicrous.                                                            

After having overreacted to Galloway's letter in August, the SWP leadership rallied its membership to emergency party councils and road shows, seeking votes of endorsements predicated on half truths and contorted facts to justify their position, in a dishonest and degrading manner.

When sound judgement was needed we got poor analysis, when honesty and frankness were required we got a call for blind loyalty and expulsions.

The situation has been appallingly handled by our SWP leadership, with a series of misjudgements eventfully reaching a position of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Have we just thrown away a fantastic opportunity? Are we now dashing the hopes of millions having given others and ourselves a glimpse of what is or was possible?

Was it right that so many were ready to join the chorus of catcalls vilifying some of Respect's brightest stars without more thoroughly questioning the denouncements.

I have seen things that I can no longer accept.
I have heard things from meetings I have been at described in a way that I don¹t recognise.

No longer will these things be done in my name.

For the reasons that I have set out, as from this moment I am resigning from the SWP.


To those of you who will feel let down I offer an unreserved apology, to those who will feel disappointed I am truly sorry, to those who could not care less and who may from here on invent their own distorted version I wish you well in your world.

We all have to live with our own decisions and I know I am leaving  the SWP with my integrity and honour intact and feel sure that I will be able to sleep well at night, safe in the knowledge that I did what I did for the right reasons at the right time and with the best intentions.


Jerry Hicks.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

That's what might be called a strongly worded letter.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

The question now is how many people Hicks brings with him.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> That's what might be called a strongly worded letter.



I think it is the strongest and most important condemnation yet from within the ranks of the SWP. from someone who has an exemplary track record as a genuine working class rank and file trade union activist, and successful activity within Respect as an election candidate.  Hicks has been a loyal SWP member since the year dot.  Hoverman, Ovenden and Wrack were important figures in the leadership and London, but Hicks has a weight among the rank and file nationally that cannot be overestimated.

I think it is important that he has not just addressed his letter to the leadership but to the entire membership of the SWP.  I would hope it will send shock waves through their ranks.


----------



## JHE (Oct 26, 2007)

An interesting letter, but one still marked by Social Worker-style bollocks.



> The 27 members of the Respect National Council who are also critical of the SWP do not represent a "Galloway faction" as is being presented, nor are any of them right wing or witch hunters as we are being asked to believe. They include people like Ken Loach, Linda Smith, Victoria Brittain, Salma Yaqoob and Yvonne Ridley. *They are all socialists*, they are all remarkable people in their own right and they are all senior members of Respect.



In what sense is Salma Yaqoob a socialist?  In what sense is Yvonne "Abu Hamza was so sweet" Ridley a socialist?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

On Tuesday night, Michael Lavalette tried to whip the ranks of the Lancashire SWP membership into a frenzy by claiming that Galloway was going to go on TV by Friday denouncing the SWP in public.  

The only TV appearance by Galloway this week was in front of millions on Question Time, promoting and defending Respect's anti war stance.

"Chicken Licken" tactics know no bounds.

Some of the signatories on the SWP petition have invented a fictitious 'Lancashire Respect'.  This is not an organisation that exists - in fact it is a cover for the fact that SWP members in Lancashire localities other than Preston have not formed a Respect branch of their own.  They build and hold positions in Stop the War or UAF throughout the year, but do not build Respect, but just come to Preston every May for election work.

Unfortunately some independent members in Preston Respect have signed the petition out of a false sense of loyalty to Lavalette but have a genuine desire to avoid a damaging split.  I doubt that they are aware of Hicks' views, or the precipitate resignation of the whip and public denunciation made by the SWP councillors in Tower Hamlets, or the changing of passwords on the membership database in the Respect Office to prevent the elected officers communicating with the membership.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 26, 2007)

Classic comment here:



> I notice that one Ger francis is commenting here: I wish to place on record the fact that this character is a hooligan and a gangster



ROFLMAO........

As you were.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> On Tuesday night, Michael Lavalette tried to whip the ranks of the Lancashire SWP membership into a frenzy by claiming that Galloway was going to go on TV by Friday denouncing the SWP in public.
> 
> The only TV appearance by Galloway this week was in front of millions on Question Time, promoting and defending Respect's anti war stance.
> 
> ...



Kevin Ovenden himself has just made exactly the same point on the SU blog.  This was a national *lie* created maliciously to con SWP members to move into line.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=910#comment-11170


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 26, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Classic comment here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't expect serious discussion from Jim Denham.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 26, 2007)

> Only if you remove the changing political circumstances and all attempts to analyse the situation in the real world.



Fantastic. So it was ok to be opportunistic then, but not now. The old dialectics I guess.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 26, 2007)

I do find it a bit much that NI can't disguise the glea at all this happening. A  tad sectarian. Everyone says about ex-SWPers and SWPers hating the SWP but a lot of SP members are equally bad towards the SWP.

What's sad about all this is that as with the SSP the split is about cliques and personalities, not about politics. This will just further damage a pathetically weak left. I can't see people flooding to the Marxist Party, remnants of the SA or the CNWP.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 26, 2007)

> In what sense is Salma Yaqoob a socialist? In what sense is Yvonne "Abu Hamza was so sweet" Ridley a socialist?



Exactly.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 26, 2007)

> The question now is how many people Hicks brings with him.



They would have brought more if they'd formed an internal faction first before leaving (well they would have been expelled in that scenario).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I do find it a bit much that NI can't disguise the glea at all this happening.



Entertainment does not equal glee. It's like being transfixed by the world's longest car crash.

I make no secret of the fact that I think that the Respect project was misconceived but I think that the way it is exploding is likely to do damage to the wider left. This is not a positive and I haven't written anything that suggests it is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 27, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> They would have brought more if they'd formed an internal faction first before leaving (well they would have been expelled in that scenario).



I gather that's next to impossible in the SWP. They changed the rules a few years ago so that you now need to have 50 people signed up to start a faction. But, as the Party Notes about the "petition" shows, any serious attempt to actually network that number together outside of branch channels is stamped on. It is of course inconceivable that anyone could do it through branch channels.

What's more the crisis in Respect is now rather than in three months time. I would guess that people like Hicks want to be able to fight their corner in the wider organisation now rather than recriminate after the main battle is over.

That said, I agree with you that tactically they should have tried. Maybe they did for all we know.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 27, 2007)

> Entertainment does not equal glee. It's like being transfixed by the world's longest car crash.
> 
> I make no secret of the fact that I think that the Respect project was misconceived but I think that the way it is exploding is likely to do damage to the wider left. This is not a positive and I haven't written anything that suggests it is.



If you say so, but to me it reads like glee. And to be honest is yet another failed far left project "entertainment"?

And if you're honest I'm sure you'd admit that many SP members have a strong dislike of the SWP that sometimes colours their judgement of them a bit (for all their obvious faults).


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 27, 2007)

> I gather that's next to impossible in the SWP. They changed the rules a few years ago so that you now need to have 50 people signed up to start a faction. But, as the Party Notes about the "petition" shows, any serious attempt to actually network that number together outside of branch channels is stamped on. It is of course inconceivable that anyone could do it through branch channels.
> 
> What's more the crisis in Respect is now rather than in three months time. I would guess that people like Hicks want to be able to fight their corner in the wider organisation now rather than recriminate after the main battle is over.
> 
> That said, I agree with you that tactically they should have tried. Maybe they did for all we know.



Fair points. It does seem to have got even more impossible to form a faction than when I was a member. The 50 signatures requirement, in the climate and rules that are in the SWP, is a joke. The internal culture truely is one of stalinism and cultism.



> It is of course inconceivable that anyone could do it through branch channels.



Out of interest, why?


----------



## JHE (Oct 27, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Entertainment does not equal glee. It's like being transfixed by the world's longest car crash.
> 
> I make no secret of the fact that I think that the Respect project was misconceived but I think that the way it is exploding is likely to do damage to the wider left. This is not a positive and I haven't written anything that suggests it is.



I'm not too sure that al-Respeq is finished yet.  I know the way things have been going in the last week make it look like it might be the death throes, but all it needs is for the top Social Workers to have a lucid moment, GG to calm down and a compromise could be found to keep the show on the road.  A couple of weeks ago it seemed that peace had broken out.  Perhaps that will happen again.

If it doesn't, we'll know the Social Worker bosses are not just incompetent but also completely bonkers.  If they didn't believe in Islamo-Trottery, it would make sense for them to get out, but they DO believe in it and they insist that they want to remain in al-Respeq.

If they have a grain of sanity they will arrange to make the necessary compromises.  The squabbles over positions and who becomes candidate here or there will continue.  That's normal in a political party.  The Social Workers will continue being grumpy at losing out to the Muslim grocers - you know, the ones who say the are in favour of trade unionism because "we need all the trade we can get" - but that's the way of the world:  you makes your little popular front and you lies in it.

If Islamo-Trottery does end soon or continues without the remaining Social Workers but with the ISG and some ex-Social Workers, that will neither help nor harm the left, AFAICS.  The Social Workers will be fucked, tho!  It's not a happy prospect for them at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 27, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> If you say so, but to me it reads like glee. And to be honest is yet another failed far left project "entertainment"?



Is the world's longest car car crash really "entertainment"? Not in any pleasant sense of the word.




			
				cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And if you're honest I'm sure you'd admit that many SP members have a strong dislike of the SWP that sometimes colours their judgement of them a bit (for all their obvious faults).



Admit it? Why would I deny something so obvious?




			
				cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Out of interest, why?



Branches are too small. Even most district meetings are too small. Dissident members can't insist on an immediate internal bulletin - there are normally three in a three month pre-conference bulletin.

How are you supposed to reach enough party members in a short time through branch structures to enlist 50? Remember the various rights of factions, like touring other branches, only belong to factions which are already declared. To be a declared faction you have to have your 50 members already! It's a catch 22. To do the things which might allow you to gather 50 people you have to do things which only a faction can do. To do those things you have to have your 50 members.

So you can go to the local "road show" meetings, which the SWP leadership have arranged. At the meeting you arrive with only a rough idea, if that, of what is going on. You are confronted by a meeting controlled by an organised leadership faction. The leadership faction have access to reports of all the supposed crimes of your opponents from all over the country and so control what information is available to the meeting and what gloss is put on it. Then you have to stand up - without access to better information - and argue against a unified line from the top. All the while the top table, the local fulltimers and so on are presenting the whole thing as an assault on the SWP and calling for a show of loyalty.

Fancy your chances?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 27, 2007)

Regarding the Jerry Hicks letter, it sounds very similar to my experiences with the socialist alliance, which was part of the reason I left the SWP. I remember having an argument with a full timer because I wanted to do SA recruitment at Marxist forums; to me this just seems logical.
As for it sending shockwaves through the SWP I can’t see it, I was a member for a few years and just about recognise the name nothing more. Kevin and Rob are a much bigger shock I think.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 27, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> It is a curiously low number, given that it has apparently been circulating for some days now. Just how low it is in the circumstances would seem to depend on how much offline organisation the SWP has been doing for this. If they've been ringing round members "encouraging" them to to agree to have their names on it then it is very poor. If it's purely an online thing, then the numbers don't reveal all that much either way.


Looking over the list (now at 552), I think it is closer to the latter there are many SWP fulltimes (including some CC members I think) not on there yet so I don’t think it means much.


----------



## newbie (Oct 27, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure that al-Respeq is finished yet.  I know the way things have been going in the last week make it look like it might be the death throes, but all it needs is for the top Social Workers to have a lucid moment, GG to calm down and a compromise could be found to keep the show on the road.  A couple of weeks ago it seemed that peace had broken out.  Perhaps that will happen again.



we observers don't really know what the game plan for the sides really is.  So peace breaking out may be on neither agenda, but if it is it's more likely he'll cave in first.

Galloway _chose_ to drop his initial grenades into Respect during widespread anticipation of a general election, A calculated pre-emptive guerrilla strike by a skilled strategist, timed to finess candidate selection and wrest longterm control while effectively forcing the massed ranks of the SWP into campaigning throughout the election.  Galloways fragmented allies are dealing with the consequences of that miscalculation, apparently without having prepared the ground nationally.  

It was a full week after Browns 'no' announcement changed the terrain that the SWP put their own strategy into place, expelling key players then choosing the battleground- formal, procedural, vote by vote, committee by committee leading up to a setpiece conference.  They've wheeled out the (they hope) properly trained battalions and dug in with carefully positioned trenches.  They face ad hoc, lightly armoured, inexperienced skirmishing groups fronted by a couple of big guns with at least one uncertain, independent agenda.


----------



## JimPage (Oct 27, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> _Do you reckon a "plague on both yer houses" petition would get more than  475 signatures?[/_QUOTE]
> 
> oddly enough, yes. The average respect supporter, member or voter would regard the differrences between the sides as irrelevant, but there seems to be complete polarisation at leadership level- with 27 Galloway opposing 20 SWP (if my numbers are accurate) with just 3 non- aligned.


----------



## JimPage (Oct 27, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> JimPage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## urbanrevolt (Oct 27, 2007)

But surley the leadership will control the delegations- we'll find out soon enough for sure but I think it's far from defintie that the swp will win


----------



## JimPage (Oct 27, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> http://swp.org.uk/respect_appeal.php
> 
> The up to date appeal is at the above link. It's currently at 476 signatories, and I'd be surprised if more than 10% are non-SWP.



its now 552 signatures- a quarter of respect- and looks like lots of candidates, organisers etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 27, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> No- if the SWP restrict the purges to the main players Galloway, Yacoob etc hopefully the rest will fall into line. Most of the councillors havent declared either way yet, and the majority of the membership will line up behind the SWP leadership. The SWP have clearly won here
> 
> What will galloway do when he is kicked out though?



In fact, all or almost all of the councillors have declared their side. 6 are with the SWP, the much larger group are with Galloway. Galloway has the NC majority, a large majority of the councillors, both of the main public figures, and a large majority of the independent members on the ground. The SWP on the other hand has its own members and bureaucratic machine and not much else. It isn't yet clear who has "won" the packing competition on the ground.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 27, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> its now 552 signatures- a quarter of respect- and looks like lots of candidates, organisers etc.



Just SWP members, Jim. Tell me, when did you become so naive?


----------



## urbanrevolt (Oct 27, 2007)

Something from Permanent Revolution here http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1755


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 28, 2007)

The bizarre ongoing public census of SWP members is now up to 700. This includes 60 or so who openly say they aren't Respect members ("Respect supporter") as well as God knows how many who aren't currently paid up but have signed as members. Also a person or two is on there twice.

The number of people who said that they were in the SWP remains 2.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 28, 2007)

But not chris Harman yet, or have i missed him?


----------



## belboid (Oct 28, 2007)

no harman, no julie waterson either. a couple of other surprising omissions from Sheffield, tho there are at least two more local non-swp people who have signed it


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 28, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The bizarre ongoing public census of SWP members is now up to 700. This includes 60 or so who openly say they aren't Respect members ("Respect supporter") as well as God knows how many who aren't currently paid up but have signed as members. Also a person or two is on there twice.
> 
> The number of people who said that they were in the SWP remains 2.



I agree the " public census" is very bizarre.  They might as well hand their membership list over to the BNP and MI6.

At least one of those who call themselves "Respect supporter" is in the SWP and has stood as a Respect candidate in the past.  I suspect a lot of SWP members have either never joined or allowed their membership to lapse.  At a local level it's not a problem, in my area anyone vaguely interested in Respect is welcome to attend a meeting, but in terms of democratic accountability is not appropriate.

Having said that I'm not even sure I'm paid up, I received a reminder at the beginning of the year and can't remember whether I'm on Standing Order or pay by cheque, so I'm not sure whether I did actually pay - anyway a card arrived in the post shortly after and I assumed I'd get a reminder if I owed money.  The chaos of the membership system was of course one of the criticisms of SR at the last Respect conference.


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 28, 2007)

According to Socilaist Unity blog - SWP leaders are negotiating a split with GG side and the Respect project. So the Respect Conference may not take place. Whether this occurs time will tell.

No one looks like they will come well out of this. SWP most of all.


----------



## spartacus mills (Oct 28, 2007)

There was a little piece about the split in today's Observer.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 28, 2007)

spartacus mills said:
			
		

> There was a little piece about the split in today's Observer.



The author of this piece was for 15 years the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, so the person who got Dundee Council to fly the PLO flag from the town hall is hardly likely to get a fair coverage and bound to be seen as the centre of controversy.  It also explains the strange reference in the final sentence to Zionism, in inverted commas - like Israel is not a zionist state?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The author of this piece was for 15 years the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, so the person who got Dundee Council to fly the PLO flag from the town hall is hardly likely to get a fair coverage and bound to be seen as the centre of controversy.  It also explains the strange reference in the final sentence to Zionism, in inverted commas - like Israel is not a zionist state?



You're reaching - and for no reason at all.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 28, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The author of this piece was for 15 years the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, so the person who got Dundee Council to fly the PLO flag from the town hall is hardly likely to get a fair coverage and bound to be seen as the centre of controversy.  It also explains the strange reference in the final sentence to Zionism, in inverted commas - like Israel is not a zionist state?



I thought the final bit strange, although probably for different reasons to yourself. 



> Respect seems to be heading towards jettisoning the SWP in favour of a tighter alliance attacking British, American and 'Zionist' policies in the Middle East.



After all it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the SWP _would not_ attack British, American or Zionist policies in the Middle East.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 28, 2007)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> I thought the final bit strange, although probably for different reasons to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> After all it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the SWP _would not_ attack British, American or Zionist policies in the Middle East.



The only conclusion one can draw is that the author knows that Galloway is opposed to zionism, but has no idea that the SWP is equally opposed.  Therefore it's not an informed piece of journalism but just a potshot at Galloway.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2007)

It's quiet, too quiet...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 29, 2007)

The rumour on the Socialist Unity blog is that the SWP are negotiating to withdraw entirely from Respect to avoid a retreat being turned into a rout, and to try and take as many of their members as possible out of Respect with them.

It's only a rumour (and there have been too many of these) but unless an SWP member comes forward to deny this, those of us committed to Respect need to start making contingency plans for campaigning to get as many SWP members as possible to stay in Respect and to ensure the survival of Respect without the SWP leadership.  The danger is that the SWP will commit a 'scorched earth' policy.

All this can and should be easily denied, if not true.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 29, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> All this can and should be easily denied, if not true.



I suspect that it hasn't been denied because SWP members on the ground don't actually know if it's true or not. It certainly wasn't what they were told at their recent membership meetings but that wouldn't stop the CC if they had a brainwave. It's likely that the SWP rank and file is as uninformed at this juncture as the rank and file of Respect as a whole. The latter group incidentally also have some cause to complain about being kept in the dark. They were told that the National Council was meeting to sort out many of the issues... and then nobody sees fit to tell them if it actually met or if these rumours are true. Respect was founded through backroom deals and it seems intent on ending in that way too.

The SWP census is now up to 800 by the way, minus a repeated name or two and a joke entry or two. The number of people who describe themselves as "supporters" (and thus, we can assume not members) of Respect is up to 90 or so. It's difficult to estimate how many non-members of the SWP are listed but it would be a surprise if it was over 100.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 29, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I suspect that it hasn't been denied because SWP members on the ground don't actually know if it's true or not. It certainly wasn't what they were told at their recent membership meetings but that wouldn't stop the CC if they had a brainwave.



That's the difficulty of getting people to act in a top down organisation. Unless someone _tells them_ to stay in Respect, they won't.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 29, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ... The latter group incidentally also have some cause to complain about being kept in the dark. They were told that the National Council was meeting to sort out many of the issues... and then nobody sees fit to tell them if it actually met or if these rumours are true.
> 
> ...



Fair point but individual SWP members in the National Office control the database of members unfortunately, and they have changed passwards and locked the other elected officers out of the membership list.  One can only hope that yesterday's alleged discussions, if it is true they took place, included being able to recover the membership list, and that the SWP have not destroyed or stolen it.

Hopefully all will be revealed soon.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 29, 2007)

Looks like you might owe an apology to fanciful butchers 

Fanciful:



> Will the SWP dare risk turning up at conference when they may lose?
> 
> Personally I think unlikely



Butchers:



> Of course they'll turn up - you just have the same disease as lev but from the opposite direction.



Latest on here:



> According to Socilaist Unity blog - SWP leaders are negotiating a split with GG side and the Respect project. So the Respect Conference may not take place. Whether this occurs time will tell.





> The rumour on the Socialist Unity blog is that the SWP are negotiating to withdraw entirely from Respect to avoid a retreat being turned into a rout, and to try and take as many of their members as possible out of Respect with them.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 29, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Fair point but individual SWP members in the National Office control the database of members unfortunately, and they have changed passwards and locked the other elected officers out of the membership list.



Didn't something similar happen in the SA?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

Will no one break this stalinist silence?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Will no one break this stalinist silence?



Not until the script's ready.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I think the SWP will carry on post Respect, re-writing it's history where possible, otherwise remaining silent, and slowly dwindling in size.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

when is the Respect NC meeting?

has anything happenned over the weekend?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

Stalin's fingers have life.

The fingers of stalin.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Stalin's fingers have life.
> 
> The fingers of stalin.



 You believe in the afterlife?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Stalin's fingers have life.
> 
> The fingers of stalin.



That'd be a great movie.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> You believe in the afterlife?



For who - the SWP?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 29, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> All I'm willing to say at this point is that I completely disagree with the leadership in this dispute - but that is only from what I've seen so far.



Now that you've seen quite a bit more where do you stand?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 29, 2007)

Any thoughts about this:

Dear Respect Member,

Our answer to the alleged "witch hunt" in Respect

Last Friday 26 October a letter titled "Respect Appeal against the
witch hunt" went out to all members from the Respect National Office.

We deplore the fact that the letter, which has been circulating
through non-Respect channels for a week by the SWP, is titled "Respect
appeal against witch-hunting" as though it had some kind of official
sanction. It has never been agreed at either the National Executive or
the National Council. It is not a "Respect Appeal".

We, as members of the Respect National Council who are not members of
the Socialist Workers Party, wish to answer this petition.

There is no witch-hunt against "socialists including the SWP" in Respect.

The letter claims there "is now overwhelming evidence that the
democratic structures of Respect are being circumvented and
marginalized" and that "some national officers are attempting to
unilaterally by-pass the existing democratic structures of Respect and
to witch-hunt socialists including the SWP."

No evidence is provided to substantiate these or any of the other
claims in the letter.

Unfortunately, it is the SWP leadership which is orchestrating a
campaign of misinformation against George Galloway and others of us
who disagree with them.

The SWP leadership carried an editorial in last week's edition of
their paper Socialist Worker, publicly attacking George Galloway:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13331

At no time has George Galloway or any one of us attacked the SWP in
the national media. Regrettably, as a result of the SW editorial an
article about divisions within Respect appeared in yesterday's
Observer.

We reject the other accusations made in the letter:

The SWP leadership is attempting to delegate students to the Respect
conference where there is no entitlement to these delegates. We have
no objection at all to student delegates properly elected according to
the constitution.

We completely disagree with the interpretation of events in Tower
Hamlets. SWP members there prevented a members' meeting from electing
delegates and then purported to elect an unrepresentative list of
delegates at an unconstitutional meeting held when the overwhelming
majority of members had left.

We no longer have confidence that the conference called for 17/18
November will be validly constituted.

We are shocked that access to the Respect database and therefore
communication to Respect members was denied to the chair, Linda Smith,
and the vice-chair, Salma Yacoob, when the access codes were changed
unilaterally by the SWP leadership. Only under pressure has that
information been released.

We further deplore the fact that four councillors in Tower Hamlets
split from Respect on Thursday evening, a fact they announced in a
widely circulated press release. The four include two members of the
SWP and two close allies. They are, in fact, the first four
signatories to the SWP's 'Respect Appeal against the witch hunt".

Instead of deploring the split by these councillors and asking them to
rejoin Respect, SWP members in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere are
supporting this step.

We, however, remain absolutely committed to the principles and
policies of Respect as contained in our founding statement, subsequent
manifestos and conference decisions: Respect, Equality, Socialism,
Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unions.

Yours in solidarity,

Linda Smith, National Chair
Salma Yaqoob, National Vice Chair

Mobeen Azhar, National Council
Ayesha Bajwa, National Council
Victoria Brittain, National Council
Rita Carter, National Council
Ger Francis, National Council
George Galloway MP, National Council
Jerry Hicks, National Council
Abdurahman Jafar, National Council
Abdul Khaliq, National Council
John Lister, National Council
Ken Loach, National Council
Abjol Miah, National Council, Leader of Tower Hamlets Respect Councillors Group
Bernie Parkes, National Council
Yvonne Ridley, National Council
Clive Searle, National Council
Alan Thornett, National Council
Nick Wrack, National Council

For more information contact nick.wrack@tooks.co.uk;
lindablackpool@hotmail.com; kevin.ovenden@gmail.com;
robhoveman@yahoo.co.uk.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Been following the rumours oout there that the SWP is negotiating its way out?

Also, DU, am genuinely interested in what you (as a good example of the young, angry and enthusiastic actvists that has provided the SWP with its continued existence over the last couple of decades) make of all this?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> For who - the SWP?



The organisation you speak of might need an iron lung to keep it going, but it will continue whether you like it, or not.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

The question now seems to be how many more members will the SWP lose as a result of all this?

That they are on their way out of Respect seems to be beyond doubt now. Will many stay in Respect? Will many leave in disgust? Will the SWP purge its ranks and retreat into a loyal core?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 29, 2007)

Text of letter sent to Respect, October 29 2007:

Misleading Article on Respect Website 

I am extremely concerned at the contents of a news item on the Respect Website which claims in the heading that RMT’s London Region has voted to support Lindsey German for Mayor. The article also states the London Transport Region supports her for the GLA elections next year. 

The report misleadingly gives the impression that RMT members for the London Area have pledged support for Lindsey German. This is unequivocally not the case. Nor does support for Ms. German represent RMT’s official position on candidates for GLA elections, or for Mayor. Firstly, the London Transport Regional Council does not represent the London Area, but merely Branches on the London Underground. Secondly, the London Transport Regional Council, or indeed any Regional Council, does not have the authority to take such decisions. Official support for political organisations or candidates is solely the province of the Union’s Council of Executives. 

It is a matter of deep disquiet that the Respect website contains such misleading statements and reference to persons claiming to be speaking on behalf of RMT’s London Area when they have no such authority. This article represents an unwarranted and unwelcome intrusion into this Union’s internal political discussions and gives members and the general public the impression that a decision has been taken on the question of support for GLA and Mayoral candidates when this is emphatically not the case.

In the circumstances, I should be grateful if you would take the necessary action to remove the offending item from your webpage.

Yours faithfully,

Bob Crow
General Secretary


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 29, 2007)

There's also a letter up on Socialist Unity, supposedly from the non-SWP faction, which seems to say that they no longer recognise Rees as National Secretary. Rees, the letter says, held a press conference with the Tower Hamlets councillors who left the Respect group where they talked to journalists about standing against Respect candidates.

If this is accurate it looks as if the split is happening right now. There could be two groups claiming to be Respect tomorrow.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 29, 2007)

Well I, as a good example of the young, angry and enthusiastic activists that has provided the SWP with its continued existence over the last couple of decades, currently choose to set a good continued example and refuse to openly talk about my grievances or agreements with internal party stuff whilst speculation on this issue is still thick in the air. If I do have grievances, it's my duty as a party member to raise them internally - not blather them all about over the web.


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 29, 2007)

See below - disgraceful antics and behaviour of SWP.

Zeppo

SWP leadership splitting from Respect


We are astonished that the Respect National Secretary John Rees has spoken publicly in support of four councillors who have split from Respect in Tower Hamlets.

Today, Monday 29 October, there was a press conference called by four former Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets. They announced that they had resigned the Respect whip on the council and were forming a Respect (Independent) party. This is a clear split from Respect.

John Rees answered questions at the press conference. He expressed his support for the four breakaway councillors. In answer to questions from journalists he said that Respect (Independent) candidates could be standing against Respect candidates in elections. Cllr Oliur Rahman, who was a member of the National Council and a national officer, did not rule out standing against George Galloway, who is Respects only nominee to be the Respect parliamentary candidate in Poplar and Limehouse. 

No party could be expected to tolerate its purported National Secretary colluding with those who have split from the organisation and discussing standing candidates against it. 

By this action he has betrayed the members of Respect and the party he is supposed to advocate, defend and build. He has forfeited his position as National Secretary and as a member of the National Council. He has clearly indicated that he and the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party are splitting from Respect.

Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the duplicitous behaviour of the SWP leadership, which has been asking for support for its petition against witch-hunts whilst preparing its forces for a split from Respect.


Yours in solidarity,


Linda Smith, National Chair

Salma Yaqoob, National Vice Chair


Ayesha Bajwa, National Council

Victoria Brittain, National Council

Rita Carter, National Council

Ger Francis, National Council

George Galloway MP, National Council

Jerry Hicks, National Council

Abdul Khaliq Mian, National Council

John Lister, National Council

Ken Loach, National Council

Abjol Miah, National Council, Leader of Tower Hamlets Respect Councillors Group

Bernie Parkes, National Council

Yvonne Ridley, National Council

Clive Searle, National Council

Alan Thornett, National Council

Nick Wrack, National Council


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Well I, as a good example of the young, angry and enthusiastic activists that has provided the SWP with its continued existence over the last couple of decades, currently choose to set a good continued example and refuse to openly talk about my grievances or agreements with internal party stuff whilst speculation on this issue is still thick in the air. If I do have grievances, it's my duty as a party member to raise them internally - not blather them all about over the web.



Well said. 

















but boring....go on, spill!


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> See below - disgraceful antics and behaviour of SWP.
> 
> Zeppo
> 
> ...




Ouch.

Looks like Rees has chosen to use the bourgois media to announce the split.

Shoddy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

That's it. Done and dusted.


----------



## Matt S (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm certainly no fan of RESPECT, but the way this whole thing has been handled is just a massive indictment of the culture of the far-left in this country. So so so depressing.

Matt


----------



## junius (Oct 29, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Well I, as a good example of the young, angry and enthusiastic activists that has provided the SWP with its continued existence over the last couple of decades, currently choose to set a good continued example and refuse to openly talk about my grievances or agreements with internal party stuff whilst speculation on this issue is still thick in the air. If I do have grievances, it's my duty as a party member to raise them internally - not blather them all about over the web.



Have you signed the SWP's petition? Couldn't see your 'name' on there.


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> See below - disgraceful antics and behaviour of SWP.
> 
> Zeppo
> 
> ...



I wonder if any of that lot had anything to do with Oli Rahman having his windows put through last weekend.... Nah.... There a cuddly bunch of democrats aren't they.....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

Which one did you think did it nwm? Thornett? Ridley? Loach? Yaqoob,?

Lash out. Go on.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

Totally fucking told. 4 years ago. It cost your printshop, it cost any reputation you may have had - and now the membership will meekly endorse Rees and German.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> I wonder if any of that lot had anything to do with Oli Rahman having his windows put through last weekend.... Nah.... There a cuddly bunch of democrats aren't they.....



 

is that an accusation?


----------



## junius (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> I wonder if any of that lot had anything to do with Oli Rahman having his windows put through last weekend.... Nah.... There a cuddly bunch of democrats aren't they.....



You've been cuddling up to them for the past three years. 

Learnt your lesson perhaps.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

Sure george:
THE SWP LEADERSHIP IS NOT SPLITTING FROM RESPECT

Dear comrades,

You may have just received a shocking E-Mail sent from the Respect’s National Office without consultation with the headline “SWP Leadership splitting from Respect.”

I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of other previous occasions the SWP is not and has no intention of splitting from Respect. 

I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest E-Mail. 

Four Respect Councillors have withdrawn from the whip. But they have made it clear that they still belong to the organisation and stand by its original aims. They have withdrawn from the whip because they are opposed to the direction Respect seems to be heading in and they are disgusted with the bullying and intimidation they have been facing inside the Respect Tower Hamlets councillors’ group. 

George Galloway and his supporters have made it clear that they do not want to have a Respect conference in less than three weeks time. Instead of allowing the Respect membership to decide the way forward, they are trying to ratchet up the pressure and make it appear that it is the SWP that wants to split from Respect.

I repeat the SWP has not split from Respect. I want to make it 100% clear that the SWP will not be bullied or blackmailed out of the coalition and nor will we just walk away from Respect. We were part of its foundation and have put as much work into the project as anyone or any other group.

The recent statements being sent out by Linda Smith and George Galloway are increasingly hysterical and are designed to confuse and disorientate Respect members and supporters who are opposed to the witch-hunt.

There should be a big health waning from any statement coming out from Linda Smith and George Galloway.

Comrades should feel free to forward this E-Mail onto their local groups – so our position is clear.

In solidarity,

Martin Smith SWP National Secretary


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> You've been cuddling up to them for the past three years.
> 
> Learnt your lesson perhaps.



who exactly are "them" junior. Scratch the surface and yer still sound like an islamophobic prick


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

MR smith being directed to write the releases now.


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 29, 2007)

Urbs - this is getting more bizarre by the minute. In the spirit of fairness see below from SWP.

Are they in or out? Is this a LSD trip? Where is the prozac?

Fish what is happening? Butchers some advice needed.

The SWP leadership is not splitting from Respect
8pm Monday 29 October 2007

This evening a shocking email has been sent from Respect’s National Office without consultation under the headline “SWP leadership splitting from Respect”.

I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of other previous occasions the SWP is not and has no intention of splitting from Respect.

I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest email. 

Four Respect Councillors have withdrawn from the whip. But they have made it clear that they still belong to the organisation and stand by its original aims. They have withdrawn from the whip because they are opposed to the direction Respect seems to be heading in and they are disgusted with the bullying and intimidation they have been facing inside the Respect Tower Hamlets councillors’ group.

George Galloway and his supporters have made it clear that they do not want to have a Respect conference in less than three weeks time. Instead of allowing the Respect membership to decide the way forward, they are trying to ratchet up the pressure and make it appear that it is the SWP that wants to split from Respect.

I repeat the SWP has not split from Respect. I want to make it 100 percent clear that the SWP will not be bullied or blackmailed out of the coalition and nor will we just walk away from Respect. We were part of its foundation and have put as much work into the project as anyone or any other group.

The recent statements being sent out by Linda Smith and George Galloway are increasingly hysterical and are designed to confuse and disorientate Respect members and supporters who are opposed to the witch-hunt.

There should be a big health warning from any statement coming out from Linda Smith and George Galloway.

Comrades should feel free to forward this email on to their local groups — so our position is clear.

In solidarity,

Martin Smith, SWP National Secretary


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> who exactly are "them" junior. Scratch the surface and yer still sound like an islamophobic prick



Homophobes and that - like Abjol Miah. 

'yer' ?


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Which one did you think did it nwm? Thornett? Ridley? Loach? Yaqoob,?Lash out. Go on.


colonel Mustard, dining room, lead piping


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

"I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest email."

Which email? Sent from where and by who?


----------



## Matt S (Oct 29, 2007)

I have to say that the standard of Trotskyist denunciations really aren't up to scratch these days.

Can't imagine Martin Smith writing 'we must use the iron steamroller of proletarianism to crush the spinal column of Menshevism' about Galloway....

 

Matt


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> "I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest email."
> 
> Which email? Sent from where and by who?



This?



> We are astonished that the Respect National Secretary John Rees has spoken publicly in support of four councillors who have split from Respect in Tower Hamlets.
> 
> Today, Monday 29 October, there was a press conference called by four former Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets. They announced that they had resigned the Respect whip on the council and were forming a Respect (Independent) party. This is a clear split from Respect.
> 
> John Rees answered questions at the press conference. He expressed his support for the four breakaway councillors. In answer to questions from journalists he said that Respect (Independent) candidates could be standing against Respect candidates in elections. Cllr Oliur Rahman, who was a member of the National Council and a national officer, did not rule out standing against George Galloway, who is Respect’s only nominee to be the Respect parliamentary candidate in Poplar and Limehouse


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

There was a press conference then - he either did or did not say those things.

It looks like soneone asked him point blank

_In answer to questions from journalists he said that Respect (Independent) candidates could be standing against Respect candidates in elections._


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

The mail attributing the press conference comments to Rees goes on to say



> By this action he has betrayed the members of Respect and the party he is supposed to advocate, defend and build. He has forfeited his position as National Secretary and as a member of the National Council. He has clearly indicated that he and the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party are splitting from Respect.



Thats that then.

Or so it seems...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

What's he doing at the press conf anyway. Is he paid top to take a side|?


----------



## mutley (Oct 29, 2007)

And this just came into my inbox:

_'THE SWP LEADERSHIP IS NOT SPLITTING FROM RESPECT


Dear comrades,


You may have just received a shocking E-Mail sent from the Respect’s National Office without consultation with the headline “SWP Leadership splitting from Respect.”


I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of other previous occasions the SWP is not and has no intention of splitting from Respect. 


I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest E-Mail. 


Four Respect Councillors have withdrawn from the whip. But they have made it clear that they still belong to the organisation and stand by its original aims. They have withdrawn from the whip because they are opposed to the direction Respect seems to be heading in and they are disgusted with the bullying and intimidation they have been facing inside the Respect Tower Hamlets councillors’ group.  


George Galloway and his supporters have made it clear that they do not want to have a Respect conference in less than three weeks time. Instead of allowing the Respect membership to decide the way forward, they are trying to ratchet up the pressure and make it appear that it is the SWP that wants to split from Respect.


I repeat the SWP has not split from Respect.  I want to make it 100% clear that the SWP will not be bullied or blackmailed out of the coalition and nor will we just walk away from Respect. We were part of its foundation and have put as much work into the project as anyone or any other group.


The recent statements being sent out by Linda Smith and George Galloway are increasingly hysterical and are designed to confuse and disorientate Respect members and supporters who are opposed to the witch-hunt.


There should be a big health waning from any statement coming out from Linda Smith and George Galloway.


Comrades should feel free to forward this E-Mail onto their local groups – so our position is clear.


In solidarity,


Martin Smith, SWP National Secretary'_


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

> Today, Monday 29 October, there was a press conference called by four former Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets. They announced that they had resigned the Respect whip on the council and were forming a Respect (Independent) party.



What media were there?

Are they reporting it yet?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

Matt S said:
			
		

> I'm certainly no fan of RESPECT, but the way this whole thing has been handled is just a massive indictment of the culture of the far-left in this country. So so so depressing.
> 
> Matt



culture of the 'far left' my arse - its the SWP - far left also my arse


----------



## junius (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> who exactly are "them" junior. Scratch the surface and yer still sound like an islamophobic prick



It seems you think I was referring to the 'communalist' wing as you now refer to it.

Some might call this term Islamophoblic.


----------



## Groucho (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> MR smith being directed to write the releases now.



Martin Smith, as Nat Sec of the SWP, writes the majority of national SWP messages to the membership.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> What media were there?
> 
> Are they reporting it yet?



Were any paid  respect officers there?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Martin Smith, as Nat Sec of the SWP, writes the majority of national SWP messages to the membership.



This is, correct me if i'm wrong, his first foray into this affair. The power of the un-named CC being enough before hand. Not now that it's all falling apart of course.

Are you happy with this Groucho?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Martin Smith, as Nat Sec of the SWP, writes the majority of national SWP messages to the membership.




what a feckin mess...


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Dunno.

Reports of the press conference seem pretty vague so far.


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> What media were there?
> 
> Are they reporting it yet?



The East London Advertiser:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/search/?searchparam=oliur

A quick skim reveals no mention of anyone standing against anyone... correct me please.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Highlights from the latest posting on Socialits Unity...





> When John Rees learned that the non-SWP members of the National Council were preparing a document that would be critical of the SWP (subsequently sent out as Respect at the Crossroads) he indicated to one of the National Council signatories that, “if this is where we are at then the SWP might just call it a day”.
> 
> A friend of both sides of the dispute who had indicated his willingness to facilitate discussions between the two sides was contacted to organise a meeting.
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> The East London Advertiser:
> 
> http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/search/?searchparam=oliur
> 
> A quick skim reveals no mention of anyone standing against anyone... correct me please.



The ELA articles are from the 26th...the latest Press Conference was today.


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> The ELA articles are from the 26th...the latest Press Conference was today.



That'd explain the lack of mention, then. Trying the search again around lunchtime on Tuesday may be instructive...


----------



## junius (Oct 29, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> The East London Advertiser:
> 
> http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/search/?searchparam=oliur
> 
> A quick skim reveals no mention of anyone standing against anyone... correct me please.



Both pieces are now three days old.


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> Both pieces are now three days old.



yes, I've already been told there was another press conference today...


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

junius said:
			
		

> It seems you think I was referring to the 'communalist' wing as you now refer to it.
> 
> Some might call this term Islamophoblic.



When have I ever used the term exactly Junior?


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Wikipedia is now recording the 





> The Crisis and Split of Respect


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> I wonder if any of that lot had anything to do with Oli Rahman having his windows put through last weekend.... Nah.... There a cuddly bunch of democrats aren't they.....



So nwnm....are you standing by this?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Wikipedia is now recording the



life imitating art? or art imitating pre-conceived view of life?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> So nwnm....are you standing by this?



I to would lie to see further evidence - shocking if true (but not that shocking...)


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

...and in case anybody missed this:


> Text of letter sent to Respect, October 29 2007:
> 
> Misleading Article on Respect Website
> 
> ...



As I said above, shoddy.

Noone is coming out of this well.


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> what a feckin mess...



Scottish Militant Labour pulling out of the CWI and setting up the SSP, expelling a large part of your Liverpool membership (including former Real Labour candidate Lesley Mahmood, and Dave Cotterell), Phil Hearse's little entry job - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.... (your group has crises and survives; our group has crises and survives - we have both been written off many times.....)


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Scottish Militant Labour pulling out of the CWI and setting up the SSP, expelling a large part of your Liverpool membership (including former Real Labour candidate Lesley Mahmood, and Dave Cotterell), Phil Hearse's little entry job - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.... (your group has crises and survives; our group has crises and survives - we have both been written off many times.....)



Now then nwnm there's a time and a place for picking a fight with the millies.

During your group's meltdown ain't it!


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I to would lie to see further evidence - shocking if true (but not that shocking...)



Last Friday, the night after the Tower Hamlets members meeting Oli's house was attacked and his windows were put in. A bit of a coincidence


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Scottish Militant Labour pulling out of the CWI and setting up the SSP, expelling a large part of your Liverpool membership (including former Real Labour candidate Lesley Mahmood, and Dave Cotterell), Phil Hearse's little entry job - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.... (your group has crises and survives; our group has crises and survives - we have both been written off many times.....)



Ignore this obvious red herring please folks. Concentrate on laughing at nwm as everyone ever is proven right and at his hi direct expense. What a political star you are nwm. You sure do light the way forward and the rest of us are racist cunts for telling you wher it'll end up. How much did you get for the printshop?


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Now then nwnm there's a time and a place for picking a fight with the millies.
> 
> During your group's meltdown ain't it!


not picking a fight - just making a point


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Last Friday, the night after the Tower Hamlets members meeting Oli's house was attacked and his windows were put in. A bit of a coincidence



Nice people you cosied up to.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Scottish Militant Labour pulling out of the CWI and setting up the SSP, expelling a large part of your Liverpool membership (including former Real Labour candidate Lesley Mahmood, and Dave Cotterell), Phil Hearse's little entry job - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.... (your group has crises and survives; our group has crises and survives - we have both been written off many times.....)



I don't see any opportunist 'alliances' there, simply differences between working class viewpoints/tactics and strategies?

Militant Labout did set up the SSP (the split between the short-cutters and the rest of Militant Labour came afterwards...) The SP is still doing fine in Liverpool by the way - the burnt-out ones have generally moved away from activity - no pandering to careerist arsewipes in the process, no external media speculation.... both sides showed some dignity. The political differences came out of mass movements NOT lack of them. No embarrassing splits in the middle of the anti-war campaign? How do our respective organisations compare?


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Last Friday, the night after the Tower Hamlets members meeting Oli's house was attacked and his windows were put in. A bit of a coincidence



...which leads you to say ????

Are you accusing other Respect members of doing this?

Or is it smear by insinuation?

As Butchers points out...these were your political allies.

Shoddy.

How's this being taken in Cardiff by the way?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> not picking a fight - just making a point



points my arse - see above


----------



## nwnm (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Concentrate on laughing at nwm as everyone ever is proven right and at his hi direct expense. What a political star you are nwm. You sure do light the way forward and the rest of us are racist cunts for telling you wher it'll end up.



 I might take you a bit more seriously when you learn to use spell check - you illiterate pratt


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> I might take you a bit more seriously when you learn to use spell check - you illiterate pratt



OK


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2007)

Be fair to nwnm. he's lined up squarely with the CC and signed the petition.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Be fair to nwnm. he's lined up squarely with the CC and signed the petition.



He's like Harry pollit in 1939. He has to think for himself for once and can't quite manage it.

Where is that damn line?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 29, 2007)

the official respect site notices somethings wrong


> Statement from Newham Respect
> 27/10/2007
> 
> This was written by members attending the emergency meeting, called by Newham members on the National Council of Respect on 26th October 2007.  The following statement was agreed at an emergency members meeting of Newham Respect:
> ...


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 29, 2007)

"We achieved the greatest percentage of Respect's vote at the last local elections (26%), as a result of standing a slate of candidates which reflected the diversity of the people of Newham." .. is this a dig?


----------



## JHE (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Be fair to nwnm. he's lined up squarely with the CC and signed the petition.




Good for him.  It's at times like these that it's most difficult to toe the line.  You just can't see clearly where the bloody line's going.  It's best to dance around - and change the subject at every opportunity.  Have you heard what a bunch of twats the Millies made of themselves in 1977?  Did you see that spelling mistake several days ago in post number 207?  That's the way to do it!

Nwnwmnw, who is himself no stranger to typos, is the loyalest of the loyal.  If you cut him open, you'd find the words 'party hack' running all the way through, from the tippy-top of his head to the very end of his line-hugging toes.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 29, 2007)

new line from official swp site 


> Respect: there is no split — let the members decide
> 9.30pm Monday 29 October 2007
> 
> The Socialist Workers Party has no intention of leaving Respect and will not be “splitting” from the coalition it helped create and to which it has been so central.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2007)

_John can only be removed through Respect's democratic structures, not by the issuing of a letter. The crisis within Respect is best resolved at our National Conference._

Is there a letter?


----------



## Matt S (Oct 29, 2007)

Is Elaine Graham-Leigh now actually in the SWP?

Matt


----------



## dennisr (Oct 29, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Be fair to nwnm. he's lined up squarely with the CC and signed the petition.




I was actually being sympathetic with his situation in my original post  to him (actually to groucho - whom i would have a much higher regard for basis on his more thoughtful posting) - i could understand genuinely the initial effort and resulting mess

the idiotic reply resulted in my reposte - stupid feckin wanker, feck him


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 29, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Which one did you think did it nwm? Thornett? Ridley? Loach? Yaqoob,?
> 
> Lash out. Go on.



My money's on Loach.  ...  After all why bother making a movie to make a point when a brick is just as good.    And he is 70 now so he'll still be nimble on his feet to leg it afterwards.


----------



## JHE (Oct 29, 2007)

Rubbish.  It was Ridley.  She'd just found out that Oliur Rahman doesn't force his wife to cover her face and that he thinks the Taliban might not be absolutely right about everything.


----------



## nwnm (Oct 30, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> the idiotic reply resulted in my reposte



That should be riposte


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

Where?


----------



## nwnm (Oct 30, 2007)

priceless


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm tickling you in your hour of need nwm. Do you know what a batten is?


----------



## Joon (Oct 30, 2007)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Is Elaine Graham-Leigh now actually in the SWP?
> 
> Matt


No.


----------



## Joon (Oct 30, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Last Friday, the night after the Tower Hamlets members meeting Oli's house was attacked and his windows were put in. A bit of a coincidence


I heard this today too. He lives with his elderly mum - how nice of whoever is responsible.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 30, 2007)

Joon said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Matt S
> Is Elaine Graham-Leigh now actually in the SWP?
> 
> Matt
> ...



Is she another one who was told it wouldn't be convenient to join just now?


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

so...what's the latest?

are the swps fighting for the franchise or wot?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> so...what's the latest?
> 
> are the swps fighting for the franchise or wot?



The latest is bambers accusing GG of trying to initiate a coup d'etat:

*********


Email sent out this afternoon to all SWP members 

Titled. A letter from Chris Bambery 
——————————————— 
Respect - Stop The Coup, Stop the Witch Hunt 

Below is a report from today’s Morning Star. It contains a number of quotes from a ’spokesperson’ for George Galloway in which this gentleman takes it on himself to declare John Rees is removed as Respect National Secretary, the SWP is removed from Respect and – most shockingly – Lindsey German is removed as Respect’s London mayoral candidate (something Ken Livingstone failed to stop). 

The Morning Star reports yesterday’s press conference accurately and in a way which contradicts the ’spokesperson’ for George Galloway. There is a report of the press conference on the Socialist Worker website (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13404) (there was not room in the forthcoming paper for the full length version). 

Below the Morning Star report is the response in the forthcoming Socialist Worker. 

What is happening here is an attempt at a coup d’état by a minority in Respect who are determined not to let the Respect national conference convene on 17 November. We need to assure everyone that the SWP has and will not ’split’ from Respect and that John Rees remains as Respect’s elected National Secretary. 

All of this makes it even more important that we continue to collect the signatures on the ‘Appeal to Respect Members’ which now has over 900 signatures. 

Chris Bambery 
Editor, Socialist Worker


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

Respect report in Socialist Worker
By Chris Bambery
Never has there been a greater need for a radical challenge to the pro-war, pro-free market consensus represented by Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Yet there is a growing crisis threatening the existence of Respect—the most successful left challenge Labour has faced in over half a century.
Respect came into existence as a coalition reflecting the major forces in the anti-war movement. The Socialist Worker Party (SWP) and Muslim activists were the two biggest components of Respect but the aim was to broaden support to encompass the growing numbers leaving New Labour and the rich mix which makes up today’s working class.
Underlying the current arguments is a growing acceptance by some that it’s only Muslim votes that can ensure electoral success. That has led to a dropping of the original conception of Respect as a wider working class organisation.
Respect MP George Galloway and his supporters have led a sustained campaign to drive the SWP and those who share the original vision of Respect out of the coalition.
Last week they asked that the SWP simply quit Respect. The SWP, which helped initiate the coalition and has been at the heart of its success, refused. Then they issued a letter stating John Rees, Respect national secretary and SWP member, should be considered removed from his position and that the SWP had “split” from Respect.
A “spokesman for George Galloway” told the press, “John Rees and with him the leadership have declared that they are splitting… The SWP leadership by its actions has walked away from Respect.”
He then added, “In no sense can Lindsey German therefore be considered the Respect candidate in the forthcoming London elections.”
The SWP, and all those who have rallied to defend the very presence of socialists within the coalition, have made it very clear that we have no intention of quitting or splitting from Respect.
John Rees was elected as Respect’s national secretary and cannot be removed by issuing a letter or by a press statement from a spokesman for George Galloway. That decision can only be taken through the democratic structures of the coalition agreed by the coalition’s national conference.
Lindsey German was elected as Respect’s London mayoral candidate at a 300 strong meeting of London Respect members.
All of this represents an attempted coup by a minority within Respect who are riding roughshod over a succession of democratic decisions without any reference to Respect’s membership. This coup attempt is being made just a fortnight away from Respect’s annual conference.
The only place to resolve the differences in Respect is the national conference, which will take place on 17 November and to which Respect branches across England and Wales have elected delegates and submitted motions.
All those who share the original vision of Respect as an inclusive coalition with a strong socialist component should reject the attempted coup in Respect and the attempt to declare the SWP’s expulsion through email and press statements.
We should let Respect’s membership decide and let Respect’s national conference resolve these differences.


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

cheers butchers...I was just about to post that.

so the swps seem determined to drag this out.


----------



## JimPage (Oct 30, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Just SWP members, Jim. Tell me, when did you become so naive?



what i mean is people who are likely, because of their position, to be elected as delegates to a conference- if this happens at all.

far from naive as to whats going on here


----------



## JimPage (Oct 30, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> _Last Friday, the night after the Tower Hamlets members meeting Oli's house was attacked and his windows were put in. A bit of a coincidence[/_QUOTE]
> 
> 1. I wouldnt put it past a few fascist infiltrators in the left ( of which there will be some no doubt to keep an eye on what the left are up to) to do this to wind things up. They are certainly monitoring developments over at Stormfront
> 
> 2. On a related manner, Redwatch must be thanking the SWP for in effect putting part of its membership list online by way of this petition


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 30, 2007)

In terms of the ‘Appeal to Respect Members’ it is surprising how few names are on it, given that the SWP are making such a push for their members to sign it. The SWP must have quite a few non-active supporters who would sign up and there must be at least some non-SWPers signing up, so the fact that they haven't even hit 1000 yet says something about the size of the SWP itself.

Also the SWP has kept banging on about links it has made with the muslim community, but what is also noticeable is how few muslim sounding names are on the petition.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> I might take you a bit more seriously when you learn to use spell check - you illiterate pratt



The word is spelt prat.


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> In terms of the ‘Appeal to Respect Members’ it is surprising how few names are on it, given that the SWP are making such a push for their members to sign it. The SWP must have quite a few non-active supporters who would sign up and there must be at least some non-SWPers signing up, so the fact that they haven't even hit 1000 yet says something about the size of the SWP itself.



quite.

i reckon a lot of rank and file swp actvists and supporters are pretty bewilderd and demoralised right now.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 30, 2007)

> 2. On a related manner, Redwatch must be thanking the SWP for in effect putting part of its membership list online by way of this petition



In all reality it's probably most of their membership.

I think nwmn is a bit of an idiot suggesting that it was a Galloway supporter who bricked Oli R's window. There could be other explanations.

But once again this just highlights how apolitical this split is. It's all about cliques and insults rather that the political flaws that underpin RESPECT that range from opportunism, tailism to a crass belief that capitlalism is in crisis.


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> nwnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> In all reality it's probably most of their membership.



Yes - every member is under orders to sign. A bizarre move. On a lighter note though, it will be a handy resource whenever some discussion comes up on a message board about whether or not someone or other is an SWP member. Just check the list!


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> In all reality it's probably most of their membership.
> 
> I think nwmn is a bit of an idiot suggesting that it was a Galloway supporter who bricked Oli R's window. There could be other explanations.
> 
> But once again this just highlights how apolitical this split is. It's all about cliques and insults rather that the political flaws that underpin RESPECT that range from opportunism, tailism to a crass belief that capitlalism is in crisis.



Is it? Well your group will be circling around now waiting to swoop on any left-overs.  *slurp*

Bambery has talked about Respect moving away from the original conception, as a wider working class organisation.

That sounds political to me?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

The cheek. Can you not see it MC5?


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yes - every member is under orders to sign. A bizarre move. On a lighter note though, it will be a handy resource whenever some discussion comes up on a message board about whether or not someone or other is an SWP member. Just check the list!



suppose somebody will copy the list to another location its wiped huh?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

For Butchers

What, that some believed that Respect wasn't set-out to be a wider working class organisation and it was a recruiting opportunity for the SWP instead?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> For Butchers
> 
> What, that some believed that Respect wasn't set-out to be a wider working class organisation and it was a recruiting opportunity for the SWP instead?



What? The SWP spent the last 4 years clamping down on any suggestions that RESPECT was ignoring the wider working class in favour of delivering a short term top-down muslim vote and calling people who brought this up racist. Now it's suddendly the whole raison d'etre of the project and what they'd been arguing for all along. Just when people like Jerry Hicks, who actually did, in some small way, help them to make some steps towards achiveving this goal has left. Good job. You really cannot see it can you?


----------



## akimbo (Oct 30, 2007)

I know it's evidence of Islamophobia to criticise Re*pect but could I suggest the name Maximum Re*pect for the losers of the current bun fight?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 30, 2007)

> Is it? Well your group will be circling around now waiting to swoop on any left-overs.  *slurp*
> 
> Bambery has talked about Respect moving away from the original conception, as a wider working class organisation.
> 
> That sounds political to me?



Not at all MC5 I doubt other left group will benefit from all this much at all. For a start it is a split to the right and secondly I think many others will just get demoralised and leave. I have said before that I don't like the glee that some people seem to have about all this, personally I think it's quite depressing. But what's worst about all of this is its apolitical nature. You can make quips about Banberry but basically this is just some kind of cliquey bun fight.

The SWP might for opportunistic reasons now say that they are fighting against Galloways opportunism and tailism but that would only have any credence if they held up their hands and said that they realise that they got things badly wrong and that their method behind building RESPECT was a flawed one. Because the very things they are now criticising Galloway for they have argued against for the last four years. Starting with Lindsey German saying at the founding conference that RESPECT couldn't be too socialist. They haven't learnt anything they are just now desperately looking around for reasons to justify their mistakes.

PS Maximum RESPECT is a great name


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Not at all MC5 I doubt other left group will benefit from all this much at all. For a start it is a split to the right and secondly I think many others will just get demoralised and leave.



This is exactly right. The only socialist group which might benefit from this is the ISG, which has criticised the SWP from the right and thus might recruit enough leftover to break the 50 member barrier if they play their cards right. The rest of the left will not recruit in any significant way from this mess.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What? The SWP spenf the laat 4 years clamping down on any suggestions that RESPECT was ignoring the wider working class in favour of delivering a short term top-down muslim vote and calling people who brought this up racist. Now it's suddendly the whole raison d'stre of the project and what they'd been arguong for all along. Just when people like Jerry Hicks, who actually did, in some small way, help them to make some steps towards achiveving this goal has left. Good job. You really cannot see it can you?



When the dominant partner in Respect is George Galloway, I would have thought that any "clamping down" on opponents would be an axiom to any project he'd be involved with.

As for the SWP:



> ...clamping down on any suggestions that RESPECT was ignoring the wider working class in favour of delivering a short term top-down muslim vote and calling people who brought this up racist.



I don't see how in an election canvassing the muslim vote is racist tbh and I also don't see how the working class has been ignored, particularly in Bolsover and Preston?

If Jerry Hicks, as you state:



> ...actually did, in some small way, help them to make some steps towards achieveving this goal..



Then I can't understand why he would want to come out and support the very people who wish to see Respect drop any notion of focussing on the working class?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> When the dominant partner in Respect is George Galloway, I would have thought that any "clamping down" on opponents would be an axiom to any project he'd be involved with.



Which doesn't have any effect on or begin to adress the issues i mentioned. It's possible for GG to be as upotight about internal dissent as the SWP CC.



> As for the SWP:
> I don't see how in an election canvassing the muslim vote is racist tbh and I also don't see how the working class has been ignored, particularly in Bolsover and Preston?



Well this is what the SWP is saying now, that the wider working class has been ignored in favour of a false perspective  of chasing after a muslim vote. And no, it was people like me who were called racist - not the SWP.



> If Jerry Hicks, as you state:
> 
> Then I can't understand why he would want to come out and support the very people who wish to see Respect drop any notion of focussing on the working class?



Maybe you should have a read of his resignation letter then?

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=912


----------



## JHE (Oct 30, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ...it will be a handy resource whenever some discussion comes up on a message board about whether or not someone or other is an SWP member. Just check the list!



Yeah, it would be even better if they added their bulletin board usernames, too - just as a handy cross reference.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Which doesn't have any effect on or begin to adress the issues i mentioned. It's possible for GG to be as upotight about internal dissent as the SWP CC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did, very little politics, but lots of criticisms about the SWP's organisational abilities. He was a member at the time too. 

I mis-read your post, my apology. I would never call you a racist butchers, but that's my point about Galloway who is very much about the issue at hand and how the SWP leadership has been cravenly following his lead, until now.


----------



## Macullam (Oct 30, 2007)

*Socialist Party on crisis in resect*

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/507/index.html?id=npsup.htm


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2007)

"The Socialist Party discussed with the leaders of Respect at the time of its foundation in 2004 *and again in 2006.*"
I dont remember the latter taking place, what was all that about?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> "The Socialist Party discussed with the leaders of Respect at the time of its foundation in 2004 *and again in 2006.*"
> I dont remember the latter taking place, what was all that about?



There was a meeting between the Socialist Party and Respect in March 2006. A report of the meeting is available here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/respect.htm#discussion


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=928

 

Oooh! dontcha love all this cloak n dagger stuff?


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

Whilst on the other hand you have this....



> #
> 
> The four councillors did NOT resign from Respect, any more than Karl Liebnecht resigned from the SPD when he voted in the Reichstag against war credits, in defiance of his party whip. The rest of Respect’s councillors in Tower Hamlets broke their promise to champion equality, socialism and inner party democracy. Just as Liebnecht, Luxemburg and others were driven out of the SPD for taking seriously the party’s prinipled support for socialist internationalism, Galloway and his supporters will try to drive socialists out of Respect. There is a difference, however. Unlike the Luxemburg wing of the SPD in 1914, Chris Harman, John Rees, Lindsay German and co have the numbers to win



 


Are you SWP/Respect supporters not really really embarrassed by this shoddy farce?


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=928
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh! dontcha love all this cloak n dagger stuff?



Nice one.

* eyes all librarians suspiciously for signs of deviant Menshevikism *


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Wikipedia is now recording the



crisis (only) in respect. the split has been removed.


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

After this:



> he SWP claimed to have 10,000 members in the late 1990s. The 2004 Party Conference reported a membership figure of 7,585 members,



they can now only manage



> 887


 on their petition after DAYS


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> crisis (only) in respect. the split has been removed.



I tried http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ and failed to get details on who'd done that edit... working on it...


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2007)

I dunno, one minute editing wikis, the next brickin someone's windows huh?

when will the bloodletting end?.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 30, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Are you SWP/Respect supporters not really really embarrassed by this shoddy farce?


 comparing this to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnicht.  Jesus wept.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 30, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> There was a meeting between the Socialist Party and Respect in March 2006. A report of the meeting is available here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/respect.htm#discussion



I remember at one conference there was a motion arguing that Respect should reach out to the SP, CPB (not workers power ) and other leftist forces. Was this meeting a result of that motion?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 30, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ... the ISG, which has criticised the SWP from the right ...



You are funny!



> Draft Resolution to Respect conference from Alan Thornett and John Lister:
> 
> In order to build Respect more effectively, conference resolves:
> 
> 1) To ensure that Respect has clear socialist politics in the coming election. This does not mean that we have to mention socialism in every sentence, but Respect has to operate within a consistent socialist framework. Any left party wanting to make its mark under these conditions will have to have clear and distinct socialist politics on which to build the campaign.



Remind me, when was the last time the SWP moved a resolution saying Respect had to put forward clear socialist policies?


----------



## PaulOK (Oct 30, 2007)

It is obvious that the SWP can now no longer work with Galloway and his supporters - kissing and making up just isn't in these peoples' political DNA. None of this is a surprise to the people on these boards who have monitored RESPECT over the past 3 years - this project was always hamstrung by it's own contradications. However I, for one, am sorry that it has collapsed as I want any 'left' project to succeed but am not at all surprised. How any of them could trust a charlatan like Galloway is beyond me and the desire to join the big leagues (a point made by the Communist party guy on Newsnight a few weeks ago) closed the SWP's eyes to the dangers.

The aim now for the Galloway clique and the SWP is who can retain the RESPECT infrastructure and it's about who can claim to be 'Official' RESPECT and who will become 'Provisional' RESPECT. I can well see the farce of TWO RESPECT London mayoral candidates next year. Whatever happens the SWP will suffer massively and despite their pretensions at being a hardened Leninist organisation (always more myth than reality), they will shed a not inconsiderable amount of members...Interesting times.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> comparing this to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnicht.  Jesus wept.



Apparently, according to a further comment from the link posted:



> ...it’s AWL’ers and oppo SWP types who’ve been defending Rees as a “working class hero” and Karl Liebknecht II.
> Possibly because they now seeing it taking a stronger stand against the people they don’t like in Respect, but certainly not because they’re out to build the SWP.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 30, 2007)

Looks like the SWP have not only alienated most of those not in their ranks within Respect - they are now incurring the wrath of their international comrades:

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/20...ialist-worker-new-zealand-to-the-british-swp/



> "Socialist Worker - New Zealand comrades see this course of action from our IST comrades in the SWP as potentially suicidal."


----------



## Zeppo (Oct 30, 2007)

Yes it is a farce. In out in out shake it all about. SWP shout witchhunt and push petition.

However, the crux of the issue is did the SWP leadership last week have a meeting with GG's side on the matter of leaving Respect and haggling who has the Respect name? All other denounciations by the SWP fade, if this meeting and its contents happened.

"the challenge of modernity is to live without illusions, without becoming disillussioned". Gramsci


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 30, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Respect report in Socialist Worker
> By Chris Bambery
> Respect came into existence as a coalition reflecting the major forces in the anti-war movement. The Socialist Worker Party (SWP) and Muslim activists were the two biggest components of Respect but the aim was to broaden support to encompass the growing numbers leaving New Labour and the rich mix which makes up today’s working class.
> Underlying the current arguments is a growing acceptance by some that it’s only Muslim votes that can ensure electoral success. *That has led to a dropping of the original conception of Respect as a wider working class organisation.*Respect MP George Galloway and his supporters have led a sustained campaign to drive the SWP and those who share the original vision of Respect out of the coalition.
> .



LOL .. the SW have been just as much USING the muslim vote when it suited them


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 30, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> ... did the SWP leadership last week have a meeting with GG's side on the matter of leaving Respect and haggling who has the Respect name? All other denounciations by the SWP fade, if this meeting and its contents happened.
> ...



I am sure SWP members will be very interested in knowing where John Rees, Lyndsey German, Martin Smith and Chris Bambery were last thursday and what they said.   

Now that Rees has gone out on a limb in front of the capitalist media, I don't expect the facade of saying different things to different people will be able to last much longer.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 30, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> LOL .. the SW have been just as much USING the muslim vote when it suited them



You can only use somebody's vote if you become by it fraudulently (awaits multiple ironic responses  ). 

Next time try using the word canvass, you know that exercise that most other political parties carry out to garner votes.  

Shoudn't you be out and about saving people from racism and scapegoating, or are you too busy tidying the squat tonight?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Looks like the SWP have not only alienated most of those not in their ranks within Respect - they are now incurring the wrath of their international comrades:
> 
> http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/20...ialist-worker-new-zealand-to-the-british-swp/



The SWO/NZ is something of a maverick group within the IST. Only a little while back they were criticising the SWP for being insufficiently enthusiastic about chavez. I'm actually sort of surprised that they haven't been kicked out already but i suppose the SWP leadership have bigger things on their minds. Anyone want to start a pool on how much longer the SWO/NZ stay in the IST?

I suspect that a better indication of the reactions of the various international branch offices comes from the Irish SWP. Their leadership sent a letter for use at the various internal SWP meetings on all of this which backs the British SWP leadership 100%. As far as I can gather they didn't bother to discuss the issue with their membership first, just as they didn't when they backed the British SWP over the expulsion of the American ISO. Most members of IST affiliates will only hear the SWP leaderships version of events.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I am sure SWP members will be very interested in knowing where John Rees, Lyndsey German, Martin Smith and Chris Bambery were last thursday and what they said.



Where were they and what did they say?

By the way, on reflection you are right about my reference to the ISG criticising the SWP from the right. It was a shorthand rather than a balanced assessment. It would have been fairer to say that the ISG criticises the SWP from a strongly pro-Respect point of view and thus are the only group which might conceivably recruit people leaving the SWP because they support the Galloway et al faction.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The SWO/NZ is something of a maverick group within the IST. Only a little while back they were criticising the SWP for being insufficiently enthusiastic about chavez. I'm actually sort of surprised that they haven't been kicked out already but i suppose the SWP leadership have bigger things on their minds. Anyone want to start a pool on how much longer the SWO/NZ stay in the IST?


thing is, they _did_ kick out most of the group a few years back, and this lot are the ones who stuck with them!  i can only assume its a fear of repeating the american fiasco that stops them doing the same thing again


----------



## treelover (Oct 31, 2007)

Who gives a shit, good riddance to all of the authoritarians and particularly their nauseating central committees, maybe we can start again with a more libertarian open politics.



> The SWO/NZ is something of a maverick group within the IST. Only a little while back they were criticising the SWP for being insufficiently enthusiastic about chavez. I'm actually sort of surprised that they haven't been kicked out already but i suppose the SWP leadership have bigger things on their minds. Anyone want to start a pool on how much longer the SWO/NZ stay in the IST?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Who gives a shit, good riddance to all of the authoritarians and particularly their nauseating central committees, maybe we can start again with a more libertarian open politics.



 would anyone even notice?


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Who gives a shit, good riddance to all of the authoritarians and particularly their nauseating central committees, maybe we can start again with a more libertarian open politics.


yeah, cos they've been really succesful, havent they?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 31, 2007)

> would anyone even notice?



Exactly. The very people who despise the far left so much fail to realise that the far left are almost a total irrelevance to 99.9999% of people.

The fact that that no alternative model for working class radicalism has been established is ignored.

Even with RESPECT, outside of a couple of local areas I don't suppose anyone will notice their disappearance.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 31, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Following Rees' deliberate appearance at the Press Conference and assistance with setting up, I think we will hear much more about what the SWP leaders were up to last week after today.  I would prefer that people heard about it directly from those involved as I only have second hand accounts so you'll just have to keep your eye on the Macuaid blog for details.

It is clear however that while still claiming to support unity in public, the SWP leaders were seeking to leave Respect en bloc behind the scenes.

I accept the clarification about 'from the right'.  Yes the ISG and Socialist Resistance, support the creation of a broad left party and therefore argue strongly against the SWP from that standpoint of being "pro Respect".  This flows from the general perspective of the Fourth International on broad parties, and concrete experience in places like Portugal and Denmark.  The LCR in France is also seeking to create a broad party, though they will have to tread carefully as a large part of the radical left are already within the ranks of the LCR itself:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1290
(You will also find links in this article to the minority positions of the LCR - illustrating that genuine socialist democracy must allow minority positions to be put in public).


I think you are wrong to call those opposed to the SWP the "Galloway faction".  The one thing that unites them is opposition to the SWP's conception of Respect as a narrow party run by the SWP for the SWP.  In that sense it is also a strongly "pro Respect" grouping.  It clearly ranges from those who are revolutionaries, now clearly very close to the ISG, to those who are reformists.  It is clearly a broad current of opinion rather than a "faction".  That so many people in Respect, virtually the entire leadership except the SWP, can unite around this is the one positive development to come out of this disaster.


----------



## newbie (Oct 31, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> yeah, cos they've been really succesful, havent they?


well, _libertarian open politics_ was behind a decade or more of anti-nuclear campaigns of the 70s and 80s.  The impetus faded only after Cruise  left (& nuclear power was off the agenda).  

Crucially, left DC parties were not in control. Compare and contrast the sustainability and resilience of that style of campaigning with the shambles that has been the opposition to the war. Very, very few people do more than grumble to their mates, all the huge impetus has been frittered away, there's little foundation for renewed focus around Iran we're left watching key players jockey for position.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Oct 31, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Exactly. The very people who despise the far left so much fail to realise that the far left are almost a total irrelevance to 99.9999% of people.
> 
> The fact that that no alternative model for working class radicalism has been established is ignored.
> 
> Even with RESPECT, outside of a couple of local areas I don't suppose anyone will notice their disappearance.




Spot on and meanwhile the enemies of progressive thought gain yet more ground. 

It all could have been SO much better.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 31, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Exactly. The very people who despise the far left so much fail to realise that the far left are almost a total irrelevance to 99.9999% of people.


And yet here we are with more than 700 posts about them, which suggests a failure of perspective on somebody's part....


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 31, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Who gives a shit, good riddance


My sentiments exactly. A plague on all their hosues. There _is_ no side to take on this other than to hope the two ghastly goliaths destroy each other. This is a battle I hope they both lose.

Neither Respect nor SWP but international socialism!


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2007)

newbie said:
			
		

> well, _libertarian open politics_ was behind a decade or more of anti-nuclear campaigns of the 70s and 80s.  The impetus faded only after Cruise  left (& nuclear power was off the agenda).
> 
> Crucially, left DC parties were not in control. Compare and contrast the sustainability and resilience of that style of campaigning with the shambles that has been the opposition to the war. Very, very few people do more than grumble to their mates, all the huge impetus has been frittered away, there's little foundation for renewed focus around Iran we're left watching key players jockey for position.


hmm - the idea that the anti-nuclear campaigns were dominated by 'libertarian open politics' is somewhat fallacious, to put it mildly. I recalle more than one or two stalinists being heavily involved.

Then there is the fact that it was also a pretty miserable failure, so hardly a great advert anyway.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 31, 2007)

> And yet here we are with more than 700 posts about them, which suggests a failure of perspective on somebody's part....



Only if you see a web board as in any way reflective of people's wider activity. If you do nothing else in terms of your politics than post on web boards then that could be the case, but I don't think it is in terms of most left activists on here.

I should think most people post on here because they're bored at work.


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> hmm - the idea that the anti-nuclear campaigns were dominated by 'libertarian open politics' is somewhat fallacious, to put it mildly. I recalle more than one or two stalinists being heavily involved.



But they were.

There were a few Stalinists. But all they got to mess with in practice _as Stalinists_ were internal shenanigans on CND National Council - and, apart from a couple of A-B demos, CND was pretty marginal to what was going on. (Its foundation in 1958 was, after all, a right-wing-Labour blocking intervention coattailing on libertarian organisation such as the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War.)




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> Then there is the fact that it was also a pretty miserable failure, so hardly a great advert anyway.



No new nuclear power stations after Sizewell B, Cruise and Pershing left - and the people who made the changes in places like the DDR and Czechoslovakia explicitly cited Greenham and the rest as their inspiration.

No effect, then.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> But they were.
> 
> There were a few Stalinists. But all they got to mess with in practice _as Stalinists_ were internal shenanigans on CND National Council - and, apart from a couple of A-B demos, CND was pretty marginal to what was going on. (Its foundation in 1958 was, after all, a right-wing-Labour blocking intervention coattailing on libertarian organisation such as the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War.)
> 
> ...


i think this is (could be) a very interesting discussion - tho one rather off the main topic.  So just a couple of quick points - 

I think you are underplaying CND's involvment with campaigns like Greenham, tho I would agree with the general point.

Nuclear power stations - well, hey weren't exactly about providing actual nationwide energy were they, that was a 'happy' spin off of the fact that they were essential for the nuclear arms industry.  So no more were needed, and they were bloody expensive to build.

No cruise & pershing replacement - largely down to worldwide geo-political factors rather than any success for the anti-nuke protests.

What your argument does show, to an extent at least, tho is rather in contradiction to treelovers argument, that the SWP/STWC _explicitly_ put a bloc against a more 'libertarian' way of organising.  If your argument is correct, then how come they managed to do so, but the far more powerful, and anti-libertarian, CP & Labour party didnt manage to do so?  they were far more powerful in their day than the SWP are now.  It would seem to imply that the failures of the 'libertarian open' brigade were down to their shortcomings, not the nastiness of the SWP.


----------



## Dej (Oct 31, 2007)

*Where were they*




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I am sure SWP members will be very interested in knowing where John Rees, Lyndsey German, Martin Smith and Chris Bambery were last thursday and what they said.
> 
> Now that Rees has gone out on a limb in front of the capitalist media, I don't expect the facade of saying different things to different people will be able to last much longer.



John Rees and Martin Smith were presenting at SWP forums on the Russian Revolution.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2007)

This is part of something i just stuck up on socialist unity and thought I’d repeat it here.

I’m not myself a RESPECT member, I left the SWP at about the time it was formed and was reluctant to join. It seems to me however, from the outside looking in that this split is really only talking place in a few areas (tower Hamlets mainly) and that for the majority of the membership it is meaningless and without ‘orders from above’ it would have no impact on how they operate. In fact I spoke to a friend of mine still in the SWP and his comments where he’s feed up of the whole thing, he can’t see the point of it, both sides have behaved stupidly and that his local RESPECT group (witch has quite serious roots) have decided to carry on regardless. Both sides seem to be forgetting that there is a RESPECT outside of 1 area of London.

I’m sure most RESEPCT members will tell me I’m wrong and that the split is about something really important but to me it looks like thousands of peoples hard work and dedication is being pissed away because of the egos of a few at the top. Very sad.


----------



## yourmom (Oct 31, 2007)

*absolutely*

what you just said is very true - it is just a local spat and Respect in other areas is going to have to suffer because of it


----------



## mk12 (Oct 31, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> This is part of something i just stuck up on socialist unity and thought I’d repeat it here.
> 
> I’m not myself a RESPECT member, I left the SWP at about the time it was formed and was reluctant to join. It seems to me however, from the outside looking in that this split is really only talking place in a few areas (tower Hamlets mainly) and that for the majority of the membership it is meaningless and without ‘orders from above’ it would have no impact on how they operate. In fact I spoke to a friend of mine still in the SWP and his comments where he’s feed up of the whole thing, he can’t see the point of it, both sides have behaved stupidly and that his local RESPECT group (witch has quite serious routes) have decided to carry on regardless. Both sides seem to be forgetting that there is a RESPECT outside of 1 area of London.
> 
> I’m sure most RESEPCT members will tell me I’m wrong and that the split is about something really important but to me it looks like thousands of peoples hard work and dedication is being pissed away because of the egos of a few at the top. Very sad.



Well said.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 31, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Well said.



I don't think it is about egos though - its about an entirely false perspective and approach unraveling in front of its not-critical enough and not-thinking enough followers. if only it was about individuals - they could simply be jettisoned.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 31, 2007)

I think it's true that this is a very London centred problem though. I can't imagine people in my old branch are arguing as visciously as they are in Tower Hamlets right now, that's for sure.


----------



## JHE (Oct 31, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> I think it's true that this is a very London centred problem though. I can't imagine people in my old branch are arguing as visciously as they are in Tower Hamlets right now, that's for sure.



Apparently, the other area with great resentments is Brum.  In other words, the squabbles have been in the two areas with the strongest groups and strongest bases of electoral support (leaving aside some corner of Preston where a Social Worker has been reelected to a council seat).  Where al-Respeq only exists on paper or consists of three members of the local Social Workers things are bound to be quiet, aren't they?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2007)

The reality is that the electoral strength of RESPECT has not been fully tested. One of the biggest criticisms of the SWP’s role in RESEPT and of John Rees in particular is that they have been too conservative regarding the number of seats to contest and have chosen those seats badly. I know of one previously strong SWP branch, which liquidated itself into RESPECT because they were blocked from standing too many times.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 31, 2007)

Dej said:
			
		

> John Rees and Martin Smith were presenting at SWP forums on the Russian Revolution.



Not in the morning they weren't.  They were negotiating to walk away from Respect - and their cover has just been blown.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=937


----------



## dennisr (Oct 31, 2007)

The SPs view:

Respect in Crisis - what lessons for Socialists? is available on the CWI website (both online and as a downloadable pdf)

http://www.socialistworld.net/


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 1, 2007)

> I don't think it is about egos though - its about an entirely false perspective and approach unraveling in front of its not-critical enough and not-thinking enough followers. if only it was about individuals - they could simply be jettisoned.



Spot on. The apolitical nature of the break down is what stands out more than anything.

And here is the PR analysis:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1758


----------



## dennisr (Nov 1, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And here is the PR analysis:
> 
> http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1758



Do you ever get the feeling our own 'great leaders' have nowt better to do at the moment?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 1, 2007)

> Do you ever get the feeling our own 'great leaders' have nowt better to do at the moment?



PR hasn't got any leaders, we are all equal  (which granted for 30 odd people isn't too hard  )

Also I was kinda taking the piss putting the link up, thought I'd join in with the blatant plugs


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Not in the morning they weren't.  They were negotiating to walk away from Respect - and their cover has just been blown.
> 
> http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=937



We have an RESPECT NC member on here who has claimed this is a direct straight up lie from Smith and Salma. That there was never any such agreemeent at either meeting. Did anyone here attend wither meeting?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Looks like you might owe an apology to fanciful butchers






			
				Fanciful said:
			
		

> Will the SWP dare risk turning up at conference when they may lose?
> 
> Personally I think unlikely






			
				Butchers said:
			
		

> Of course they'll turn up - you just have the same disease as lev but from the opposite direction.



Nah, looks like they'll be _the only_ ones turning up to conference now.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 1, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> The reality is that the electoral strength of RESPECT has not been fully tested. One of the biggest criticisms of the SWP’s role in RESEPT and of John Rees in particular is that they have been too conservative regarding the number of seats to contest and have chosen those seats badly. I know of one previously strong SWP branch, which liquidated itself into RESPECT because they were blocked from standing too many times.



strongly agree with you here. although the tactic of standing in a few wards to start with is a sound one ( it was used by the BNP in the May 2000 and 2002 Elections to good effect from their point of view) with 6000 members, the SWP should be figting far more widely. If they can get 4 people out selling SW on a weekend, they have enough people to build support is a council ward


----------



## articul8 (Nov 1, 2007)

SWP aligned councillors who resigned the whip in Tower Hamlets, under John Rees' guidance - now in discussions over a pact/coalition/alliance with the Lib Dems? :
http://socialistunity.com


----------



## JimPage (Nov 1, 2007)

PaulOK said:
			
		

> . I can well see the farce of TWO RESPECT London mayoral candidates next year. Whatever happens the SWP will suffer massively and despite their pretensions at being a hardened Leninist organisation (always more myth than reality), they will shed a not inconsiderable amount of members...Interesting times.



1. 960 people now singed up for the SWP position. Galloway is therefore dead in the water- it will be the SWP and allies who retain the Respect name

2. Galloways remnant will not be able to call themseleves anything like "Respect", they will have to join the register of political parties which dont allow any party sounding too much like another one. 

3. If anything, this will not harm the SWP internally, but has fired up activists. They like nothing more than an enemy attacking the SWP by name.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2007)

Is that a report or a letter - can't tell from the scan -anyone have a paper copy?


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 1, 2007)

there seems to be some sort of problem for the lib dems about the respect name.... perhaps something relating to democracy and socialism?
























...the social democrat party?


----------



## JHE (Nov 1, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> SWP aligned councillors who resigned the whip in Tower Hamlets, under John Rees' guidance - now in discussions over a pact/coalition/alliance with the Lib Dems? :
> http://socialistunity.com



It was reported back in February that in LBTH al-Respeq was working closely with the Tories.  The four splitters are obviously moving to the left - all the way to the Lib Dems.


----------



## belboid (Nov 1, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> 1. 960 people now singed up for the SWP position.


sadly, around a hundred arent in respect tho. I supose that balances the 100 (max) who are non-SWP signers



> Galloway is therefore dead in the water- it will be the SWP and allies who retain the Respect name


do try and find a sense of proportion - the respect 'name' is worth shit all, the name that mattered for votes was 'Galloway'.  Its you who is dead in the water



> 3. If anything, this will not harm the SWP internally, but has fired up activists. They like nothing more than an enemy attacking the SWP by name.


you're living in a parallel universe arent you?  You are losing members, even convinced supporters (such as an ex-cc member who is a prominent respectite in sheffield) is grossly embarassed. 

I hope your off the crutches soon (y'know, the ones you got after shooting yourself in the foot)


----------



## dennisr (Nov 1, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> I hope your off the crutches soon (y'know, the ones you got after shooting yourself in the foot)



wrong side of bed this morning?


----------



## belboid (Nov 1, 2007)

you think they havent shot themselves in the foot by this??!!


----------



## Groucho (Nov 1, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> 1. 960 people now singed up for the SWP position. Galloway is therefore dead in the water- it will be the SWP and allies who retain the Respect name
> 
> 2. Galloways remnant will not be able to call themseleves anything like "Respect", they will have to join the register of political parties which dont allow any party sounding too much like another one.
> 
> 3. If anything, this will not harm the SWP internally, but has fired up activists. They like nothing more than an enemy attacking the SWP by name.



I suspect that ownership of the name is a legal issue not a numerical one.... 

Of course it is ridiculous to suggest that the SWP like nothing more than to be attacked. There are signs that the attack is bringing some members out of semi-retirement back to meetings etc. However, the whole episode is damaging to the left generally. 

Respect has been a genuine attempt to build a pluralist left electoral alternative to the LP based on a coalition. Respect has been victim of its own success in a way. Namely that in some areas where RESPECT has succeeded in building a broad electoral base the organisation has attracted careerists who can buy influence (principally in Tower Hamlets). A lot of the new activists who have come from the anti-war movement also have a certain lack of political experience. The pull of electoralism, by which I mean that electoral success is seen by some as the be all and end all, has been a pull to the right.

Further, RESPECT had not yet succeeded in sufficiently broadening its base outside of a few key areas, so a battle within TH has the ability to destabilise the organisation nationally. A few key individuals, noteably Galloway of course, have disproportionate influence as the public face of Respect. Galloway has been Respect's greatest asset (his appearance at Congress, public speaking/radio show) and its greatest liability (his complete lack of accountability, Big Brother etc).

In my view the tragedy is that a real possibility of building a framework for a broad based left alternative is being ripped apart by this civil war. The war begun in Tower Hamlets and to a lesser extent in Birmingham effectively over orientation - was Respect to be a pluralist left-wing organisation as originally envisaged, or a community based organisation with no real politics. This battle became a national struggle when Galloway appeared to panic about an early election and seemed to believe his hope of getting re-elected lay with the more conservative community based forces. He launched an attack on the SWP which he and his allies have now taken to civil war proportions. 

Although it would have been possible to reach a compromise over the details of Galloway's original letter, it soon became clear that the room for compromise was being closed off by the Galloway camp. The very democracy within Respect is under attack as Galloway and allies are now threatening the sovereign body of the organisation - Respect conference. 

I am trying not to write about Respect in the past tense, but I don't think it is now possible for the two camps to continue to work together. Respect in Newham and in Preston are models of a pluralist left electoral body that campaigns beyond merely the electoral arena. The recent de-selection of Bob Wairing and the failure of Jon McDonnell to launch a leadership challenge within labour show that while there are broader forces out there, attempting to operate within LP is a non-starter. The aims around which RESPECT was initiated remain important. 

On the industrial front the recent UNISON result ends the possibility of a revolt across public sector unions at least until the New Year. The decision by the CWU to sell a compromise deal also delays a generalised fight-back. In both cases the dead hand of Labourism within the unions contributed to these outcomes. The PCS ballot by contrast has reaffirmed commitment to action in defence of the public sector. The need to build a political core of a militant rank and file based TU network remains. 

An electoral strategy can only ever be one part of a broad approach to rebuilding a left-wing movement, and must always be subordinated to self-organisation of the working class.


----------



## glenquagmire (Nov 1, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> The recent de-selection of Bob Wairing and the failure of Jon McDonnell to launch a leadership challenge within labour show that while there are broader forces out there, attempting to operate within LP is a non-starter.


And the recent examples of the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Respect show that attempting to set up a non-Labour socialist party is a non-starter.

And here we go again.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 1, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> you think they havent shot themselves in the foot by this??!!



Indeed, I'm not quite as angry about it though


----------



## Groucho (Nov 1, 2007)

glenquagmire said:
			
		

> And the recent examples of the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Respect show that attempting to set up a non-Labour socialist party is a non-starter.
> 
> And here we go again.



I disagree. I think Preston and Newham RESPECT are model examples of how this could be done.


----------



## JHE (Nov 1, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I don't think it is now possible for the two camps to continue to work together.



Your party bosses STRONGLY DENY that they are going to exit al-Respeq.

Are they:

1.  Lying through their teeth?

2.  Really saying that THEY are staying in al-Respeq, but Galloway - by far the most important individual in the alliance - and most of the non-Social Workers are going to have to leave?

3.  Much more optimistic than you are about the prospect of patching things up (despite their angry denunciations of Galloway, Abjol Miah & Co)?

I really can't see a fourth explanation.  Can you?


----------



## Jografer (Nov 1, 2007)

Not sure it's possible for respect to become even more irrelevant....


----------



## glenquagmire (Nov 1, 2007)

And I think there are several constituency Labour Parties which are model examples of how socialism can be propagated successfully in the LP and in society.

But neither of us have proved much of a point there, have we?


----------



## Groucho (Nov 1, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Your party bosses STRONGLY DENY that they are going exit al-Respeq.
> 
> Are they:
> 
> ...



There is a fight for Respect and it aint over. The opinions I have given are my own. If GG f's off that doesn't mean that most of the non-SWP members will go with him. However, in my view Respect has no medium to long term future outside of TH if it goes in the Miah/Galloway direction. 

In my view the future for Respect lies with the model set by Newham and Preston. 

I look forward to backing a socialist candidate - Lindsey German - in the London mayoral elections.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 1, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> In my view the future for Respect lies with the model set by Newham and Preston.



some persepctive please - your representation on the council in Preston is half that of the Independent Labour grouping.  I'm not saying there hasn't been any worthwhile work done there (on City Academies etc).  But nothing groundbreaking and no hugely significant breakthrough either.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 1, 2007)

glenquagmire said:
			
		

> And the recent examples of the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Respect show that attempting to set up a non-Labour socialist party is a non-starter.
> 
> And here we go again.


but why? .. (see other thread!)  .. imho it is intrinsic to leninism ( the dominant force still in leftist politics) to want to be in charge .. until this is superseeded the is no hope for a genunine progressive movement as people will forever be trying to take charge ..


----------



## JHE (Nov 1, 2007)

Individuals and factions wanting to be in charge is not peculiar to Leninism.


----------



## cutandsplice (Nov 1, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> There is a fight for Respect and it aint over. The opinions I have given are my own. If GG f's off that doesn't mean that most of the non-SWP members will go with him. However, in my view Respect has no medium to long term future outside of TH if it goes in the Miah/Galloway direction.
> 
> In my view the future for Respect lies with the model set by Newham and Preston.
> 
> I look forward to backing a socialist candidate - Lindsey German - in the London mayoral elections.


Does she still think gay rights is 'a shibboleth?'


----------



## pingupete (Nov 1, 2007)

We've got our own differences in the Greens over the leadership issue, which is probably as divisive as it gets for us. We are having a party wide ballot of members to decide on it because a conference decision would have been horrendous. Has no-one proposed this in Respect, or has it gone far beyond this point now?

If a split does happen, an outsider view is that the issue over the name is probably the most controversial I would think. "Respect" is more recognisable now than it was three years ago, but probably only in areas where it is already established (the same is true for us). Which faction will end up with control of the name? I don't think Galloway & Yaqoob, two politicians in their own right need it as much the wards being targeted elsewhere by Respect.

I've got to say that as a Green reading some of this stuff, I'm just gobsmacked by how badly wrong things have gone, and how public this is. As someone who viewed Respect as a political rival I've been reluctant to comment, but even I feel sorry for Respect activists on the ground. A lot of people have put in a hell of a lot of hard work and this national bust up is no fair reward.


----------



## PaulOK (Nov 1, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> 1. 960 people now singed up for the SWP position. Galloway is therefore dead in the water- it will be the SWP and allies who retain the Respect name
> 
> 2. Galloways remnant will not be able to call themseleves anything like "Respect", they will have to join the register of political parties which dont allow any party sounding too much like another one.
> 
> 3. If anything, this will not harm the SWP internally, but has fired up activists. They like nothing more than an enemy attacking the SWP by name.



Remember that GG is notoriously litigious - he is always suing somebody or other, has very good lawyers and has a good rate of success so all of this could well end up in the Courts. Maybe that's why the SWP is trying to rake in as much cash as possible at the moment?

As for the SWP rank and file - shouldn't they be asking some serious questions of their Central Commitee? This is the team who have been talking up their association with GG (Remember Rees's "We stick by our friends" comments in the wake of Celebrity Big Brother?) for the past half decade and suddenly it all turns into the brown stuff. The SWP sees itself as the vanguard party (yeah..right!  ) whose CC will take the crucial decisions in a time of revolution that will steer the WC to victory. Doesn't all that look a tad tarnished now?


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 1, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Individuals and factions wanting to be in charge is not peculiar to Leninism.


i accept that .. most @'s and @ 'parties' are no better .. but i would argue it all comes form this xtian evangelical 'out in the desert' martyr bullshit .. both jewish tradition and jesus's 'leave your family' stuff ... leninism is a culmination of this psychologically 

then, IWCA are far far more interesting than people give them their due .. they are not just bods doing some community door knocking .. this is a major political development ... they are part of a possible humanistic break ( along with some @ some  autonomist some green groups) with an elitist model of politics that had held us back for too long .. goes to other thread!


----------



## nwnm (Nov 2, 2007)

Respect councillors explain their resignation
(Morning Star, 30 October 2007)

THREE Tower Hamlets Respect candidates explained their decision to resign the 
party whip at a press conference on Monday. Councillors  Oliur Rahman, Lutfa 
Begum and Ahmed Hussain, along with Cllr Rania Khan, who was not present, 
resigned from the Respect group on Tower Hamlets council on Thursday due to 
"differences" with group leader Cllr Abjol Miah.

Mr Rahman said: "We resigned because we want to work in a democratic way. We 
want to represent the working class and trade unionists. Under Cllr Miah's 
leadership, we lost two councillors. He lacked leadership and failed to unite 
the group. We remain loyal members of national and Tower Hamlets Respect."

Ms Begum accused Mr Miah of inappropriate behaviour at meetings, for instance 
shouting at other members, of parochial "village politics" and of recruiting 
"pocket members" whom he manipulated in order to control branch meetings.

Mr Hussain alleged that Mr Miah had not upheld the basic values of Respect. "He 
was not willing to work with other members of the coalition," he said.

Respect national secretary John Rees was keen to play down suggestions of a 
split in the coalition. When asked whether the Socialist Workers Party would 
split from Respect, he said: "Of course not. We founded Respect - with 
others."

But a spokesman for Respect MP George Galloway said:

"The reason the councillors gave for resigning was entirely selfish. It was 
that they could not overturn the democratic decision of the annual general 
meeting to vote for Abjol Miah as the council group leader. By his presence at 
the press conference and support for these breakaway councillors, John Rees 
and, with him, the leadership
of the SWP have declared that they are splitting from the majority of us in 
Respect.

"He is openly talking about backing candidates against Respect candidates. The 
SWP leadership by its actions has walked away from Respect. In no sense can 
Lindsey German therefore be considered the Respect candidate in the forthcoming 
London elections."

The four members will now form the Respect (Independent) group on the council.

see also - 

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13432

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13433

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13434

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13430


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 2, 2007)

"We resigned because we don't like the council group leader" must rank as one of the most hilariously apolitical justifications I've ever heard for a political schism.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Nov 2, 2007)

pingupete said:
			
		

> We've got our own differences in the Greens over the leadership issue, which is probably as divisive as it gets for us. We are having a party wide ballot of members to decide on it because a conference decision would have been horrendous..



my take is we are having a party-wide ballot because the pro-leader/Grey faction think they are more likely to get the result they want from less active members than Conference.  In that, they may well be right--and I might not get begging letters every week from Caroline Lucas on some pretext or other, she'll be too busy making up Green Party policy in TV studios.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 2, 2007)

PaulOK said:
			
		

> As for the SWP rank and file - shouldn't they be asking some serious questions of their Central Commitee?


LOL! The most serious question they ask of their CC is "how high?".


----------



## JimPage (Nov 2, 2007)

Groucho[I said:
			
		

> ]I suspect that ownership of the name is a legal issue not a numerical one....
> 
> Of course it is ridiculous to suggest that the SWP like nothing more than to be attacked. There are signs that the attack is bringing some members out of semi-retirement back to meetings etc. However, the whole episode is damaging to the left generally". [/I]
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> Whoever is in the majority at the conference will get the name


not necesarilly,  Linda Smith is the acknowledged 'leader' it could well go with her.


----------



## Jografer (Nov 2, 2007)

PaulOK said:
			
		

> As for the SWP rank and file - shouldn't they be asking some serious questions of their Central Commitee?



... more expulsions to follow if they do....


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 2, 2007)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/695/respect.htm

I hate the weekly wrecker but the comments from rahman are interesting


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 2, 2007)

#746 





			
				Groucho said:
			
		

> "I suspect that ownership of the name is a legal issue not a numerical one....
> 
> Of course it is ridiculous to suggest that the SWP like nothing more than to be attacked. There are signs that the attack is bringing some members out of semi-retirement back to meetings etc. However, the whole episode is damaging to the left generally...... "



well put groucho, by far the most balanced argument in all the gossip through these numerous threads....

my feeling is, that its funny that a national debate in the media about a snap election (that would of happened yesterday btw) can leave reformists,whom having surveyed their support and scrambled for more, leave them high and dry and looking for excuses...when the election is "bottled"....

everything after that is symptomatic...

etal gg and co

*back to the real world*


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 2, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/695/respect.htm
> 
> I hate the weekly wrecker but the comments from rahman are interesting



Rahman:
"As far as comrades Begum and Hussain were concerned, they made their own minds up. Certainly for myself and councillor Khan, we did not take instructions from anybody."

Code for: "the SWP told their members what to do and we followed them".

The idea that a member of the SWP would take any independent decision in this situation, after what happened to Nick Wrack, is quite unbelievable.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 2, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> not necesarilly,  Linda Smith is the acknowledged 'leader' it could well go with her.




She is both registered Leader and "Nominating Officer", the most important position legally with the Electoral Commission.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 2, 2007)

> with 6000 members, the SWP should be fighting far more widely



Do you seriously believe the SWP has 6000 members? Why do people keep repeating these kinda things? Even they claim they’ve got less than that. In reality I doubt they have more than 1500 active members. I mean look at the internet petition they asked all members to sign, last time I looked it hadn’t even got into four figures.



> Nah, looks like they'll be the only ones turning up to conference now.



Fair point! But wouldn’t you agree that fanciful’s point, given what had developed, wasn’t exactly an unreasonable one.

But the apolitical farce continues, whatever the outcome. The SWP criticises the other side for things that loads of people having been pointing out for four years. No political leasons will be learnt because the split isn't political.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 2, 2007)

> 888. Nobu Ono Respect member and President of TVU Student Respect


 I spent the last 2 years at tvu and can say that there is no such group there.
nor is one listed on the TVUSU list of societies
http://tvusu.co.uk/minisites/index.php?cat_id=71


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 2, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> I spent the last 2 years at tvu and can say that there is no such group there.
> nor is one listed on the TVUSU list of societies
> http://tvusu.co.uk/minisites/index.php?cat_id=71



There are others that clearly do not exist either.  

There is also the issue of double representation - one person listed on the SWP appeal is listed as a student respect member in London, but was already counted in the delegate entitlement for a branch elsewhere.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 2, 2007)

> Estelle *Cooch*





> Mary *Cooch*



Surely these two have got to be piss takes.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2007)

Mary is Estelle's mum, or is it the other way round?

Swarthy Thug used to print of her pick to toss off over, strange man....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 2, 2007)

The reports from local Respect selection meetings on Socialist Unity and Mac Uaid have been pretty interesting. It seems that a whole layer of SWP members are resigning, mostly those who have been very involved in Respect. People who have announced resignations include Gary McFarlane, Joe Sisoko, Soraya L. and others as well as Hicks and Bird. What's more, other SWPers are wobbling at meetings - hilariously one branch had a secret ballot delegate election and the way the votes fell, a few of the SWPers must have voted for the other side!

It seems that the Galloway faction are going to by and large boycott the conference, so as to bring home to the SWP the joys of sitting in a room on their own. They will however be sending at least some people along, to ram the point home to the assembled SWP rank and file and to keep an eye on proceedings.


----------



## Geri (Nov 3, 2007)

GG's lot hold their own RESPECT conference RENEW RESPECT - CONFERENCE INVITATION


----------



## nwnm (Nov 3, 2007)

George Galloway - "I came, I saw, I........ ran away!"


----------



## JHE (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> GG's lot hold their own RESPECT conference RENEW RESPECT - CONFERENCE INVITATION



I was very slow to accept that al-Respeq would split, but I was wrong.

It has now happened.  Two separate national conferences = two different parties, albeit two parties each of which claims exactly the same politics.  In that respect (oops!), it's rather like the SSP split.

The Social Workers really are a bunch of silly fuck-ups!

What are the prospects of the two groups?  I don't know which one will be able to keep the name (court battles ahead?), but (i) the Social Worker group will soon be just another cap for the Social Workers to wear from time to time and (ii) the non-Social Worker, GG-led group will stagger on as a Muslim-based, but occasionally left-sounding, group in Tower Hamladesh and Brum.  (GG might just manage to get elected, I suppose, in the new seat.)

Rest in piss Islamo-Trottery!


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 3, 2007)

well there are two organisations now.

From Respect website- controlled by SWP-

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1624


----------



## JHE (Nov 3, 2007)

How to interpret the silence from the Social Workers... ?

Today sees the collapse of the political project to which the Social Worker bosses and their loyal foot soldiers have devoted the past three or more years.

I remember the Social Workers on this site denying the rumours of the attempt to set up the Peace & Justice Party (or Purdah & Jihad Party), but lo it came to pass and it was called RESPECT.  A deal was done with various Mozzy big wigs, not least Mad Wiggy Naseem at Brum Central Mosque, and with Big GG, too.

This, the Social Workers proceeded to tell us, was the most important and most successful political initiative since the dawn of time.

Many people predicted splits.  The Trots and the Mozzies had to split, didn't they?  Too many disagreements, some thought.  But that didn't happen.  The Social Workers wouldn't allow 'shibboleths' to derail the alliance.  The ummah was more or less cast in the role of the new world proletariat.  The daft trots chanted for Hezbollah and Hamas.  Only Ray Cysts dissented.

Now, as a result of a spat between the Social Worker bosses and GG - not between Trots and mosque-goers - the whole project has split down the middle.  Social Workers and one or two of their friends on one side, a motley crew of Everyone Else on the other.

Come on, Social Workers.  Tell us how it feels.  Tell us you are really rather pleased to be rid of GG (if you are).  Tell us you were fed up with the Mozzy grocers and the 'slamists getting all the nominations (if that's how you feel).  Or tell us how sorry you are about the whole sorry mess created by your bosses.

Say something, anyway.  You can't see the end of three or more years political work and pretend that nothing's happened, can you?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 3, 2007)

I think I've already expressed the only reasonable way to behave as a member of a democratically centrist organisation.

We're not going to throw you any meat whilst this is going on - so you may as well not try.


----------



## JHE (Nov 3, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I think I've already expressed the only reasonable way to behave as a member of a democratically centrist organisation.
> 
> We're not going to throw you any meat *whilst this is going on* - so you may as well not try.



I think it's now DONE, Dog, not 'going on'.  I thought until recently that the Islamo-Trot alliance would be stuck together with a bit of sellotape and tipex, but it hasn't been.  The game's up.


----------



## mutley (Nov 3, 2007)

How do i feel?

Like a mug for defending GG in the BB scandal.
ditto for having worked hard whoever got selected as a Respect candidate.

But quietly optimistic that the best elements in East London are with Respect (original and best) rather than Respect (celebrity). And hopeful that we'll build on a healthy base in Preston, Derbyshire and a lot of places where people would rather stay with an organisation that actually has branches. 

Amused that Salma Yaqoob has put her name to a document in which she accuses others of control freakery (pot! kettle! glass houses and stones!).

I'd still def defend the respect project all the way - it went a lot further than any SA type project could have done. But it was (and still is) unknown territory


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 3, 2007)

mutley said:
			
		

> How do i feel?
> 
> Like a mug for defending GG in the BB scandal.
> ditto for having worked hard whoever got selected as a Respect candidate.
> ...



Haven't you read the conference documents?  The period of building broad left parties is over.  The pressure to capitulate is too high.  Time to go back to building 'the smallest mass party in the world".  

Farewell comrades.  See you in another 20 years time when you catch up with the real world outside your party's shuttered eyelids.


----------



## mutley (Nov 3, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Haven't you read the conference documents?  The period of building broad left parties is over.  The pressure to capitulate is too high.  Time to go back to building 'the smallest mass party in the world".
> 
> Farewell comrades.  See you in another 20 years time when you catch up with the real world outside your party's shuttered eyelids.



See you in about 6 months time when GG decides he doesn't need any left cover and fucks you over.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 3, 2007)

GG told his listeners last night that he was contemplating standing for Mayor of London.

He also said look out for some video announcement from him on You Tube in the next few days.


----------



## laptop (Nov 3, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> From Respect website- controlled by SWP-
> 
> http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1624



Are you *sure* that page wasn't designed in 1998?


----------



## stylegar (Nov 3, 2007)

mutley said:
			
		

> See you in about 6 months time when GG decides he doesn't need any left cover and fucks you over.


LOL


----------



## nwnm (Nov 3, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Haven't you read the conference documents?  The period of building broad left parties is over.  The pressure to capitulate is too high.  Time to go back to building 'the smallest mass party in the world".
> 
> Farewell comrades.  See you in another 20 years time when you catch up with the real world outside your party's shuttered eyelids.



Yeah, see you when you actually struggle out of your armchair and sign up for one of the projects you claim to be a member of....


----------



## treelover (Nov 3, 2007)

I am sure I have seen Respectoid (formerly SWP) Ger Francis described as a thug on here, or is this the all new and improved Ger Francis


----------



## treelover (Nov 3, 2007)

oh, and I see 'bonkers Ridley' is part of New Respect, er no thanks....


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> I am sure I have seen Respectoid (formerly SWP) Ger Francis described as a thug on here, or is this the all new and improved Ger Francis



He was a Islamophile thug, when he was a Social Worker.  He's now a good mujahid.  Before long, he'll be a good shahid, I expect.  Best keep away from him until after he's exploded.


----------



## treelover (Nov 4, 2007)

the thing is however farcial it all is, it will look bad for whats left of the left and tbh, thats a crying shame:, with the neo-liberal offensive ready for a new phase, domestically with welfare reform, NHS privatisation, etc and drumbeats of war in Iran internationally (and now the possibilty of civil war in pakistan maybe leading to a Fundi-Islamic state) we do need a progressive unified left.


----------



## laptop (Nov 4, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> He was a Islamophile thug, when he was a Social Worker.  He's now a good mujahid.  Before long, he'll be a good shahid, I expect.  Best keep away from him until after he's exploded.



He may well be or have been a Leninist thug.

But actual evidence of his propensity to religious martyrdom would dispel the impression that JHE is merely ranting from the precarious heights of his hobby-horse.


----------



## treelover (Nov 4, 2007)

btw, just a few organisations the SWP has attempted to control and then destroyed or fatally weakened

The Campaign against The Criminal Justice Act
Socialist Alliance
STWC

now respect


----------



## treelover (Nov 4, 2007)

btw takling about farce, there are now 4 broadly left wing conferences happening on the same day, I despair!




> i) The Respect(SWP) Conference will mainly be a rally, where quite a lot of delegates won’t be entirely clear why they’re there and the votes will be of the 99.9% unanimous variety.
> 
> (ii) The Respect (Renewal) Conference won’t be a delegate conference, since it’s open to all interested members. There are likely to be a variety of position papers and much reaffirmation of democracy and pluralism, but it will have a big organisational problem from day one, such as branches. It remains to be seen how Alan Thornett and John Lister’s relationships with George Galloway will pan out, given their previous criticisms were made more openly than the SWP’s
> 
> ...


----------



## mk12 (Nov 4, 2007)

> btw takling about farce, *there are now 4 broadly left wing conferences happening on the same day*, I despair!



Nigel Irritable has just cum.


----------



## lewislewis (Nov 4, 2007)

I wonder what will happen to the Cardiff Respect branch. The Butetown and Splott proletariat are crying out for news of their people's representative George Galloway.


----------



## greenbrain (Nov 4, 2007)

Does this mean than the Green Party will now start getting requests from 2 (or more) Respect organisations to stand down in certain places to avoid splitting the vote?


----------



## mutley (Nov 4, 2007)

The swp cc reply:

http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_cc.php

passed by a delegate meeting yesterday..


----------



## Macullam (Nov 4, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> btw takling about farce, there are now 4 broadly left wing conferences happening on the same day, I despair!



The Socialist Party event is not a conerence as such

Sick of low pay and long hours?
Angry at cuts, closures and privatisation?
Tired of poverty across the globe?
Want an end to war and occupation?

        Join the fightback and come to

17 - 18 November 2007
University of London Union, Central London

    Socialism 2007 is a weekend of discussion and debate hosted by the Socialist Party, taking place on the 17 and 18 November 2007.

    If you're interested in socialist ideas, involved in your trade union or community campaigns or want to discuss the fight back then Socialism 2007 is the perfect place to start.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 4, 2007)

Quote: 
There was no future in appealing to workers on just class or anti-war arguments (despite the success of Socialist Worker members Michael Lavallette and Ray Holmes in the May elections) and there had to be a shift towards courting “community leaders” . The Socialist Workers Party was resisting such a turn,  

Quote: 
For the Socialist Workers Party has a long record of working over a wide range of issues with people and organisations with different views to our own. 

Quote: 
Of course, there have been times when people have attempted to throw mud at us as revolutionary socialists. But the mud has never stuck because we have no interest in manipulation 

Quote: 
They have known that we do not attempt to smuggle in our own views by the back door or impose them on others. 

We have no interest in such manipulation 


Quote: 
Our members also had to argue much more widely, with people tinged with Islamophobia who objected to working with Muslims. We also had to argue with people on the socialist left who objected to working with George Galloway, claiming his past record ruled this out (he had, for instance, never been a member of the Campaign Group of MPs and ruled out Respect MPs accepting a salary equal to the average wage). 

thank goodness the swp have revealed this!! otherwise we would never have known!  
Quote: 
For such people their model of politics was that increasingly used by the Labour Party in ethnically and religiously mixed inner city areas — promising favours to people who posed as the “community leaders” of particular ethnic or religious groupings if they would use their influence to deliver votes. This is what is known as Tammany Hall politics in US cities, or “vote bloc” or “communal” politics when practiced by all the pro-capitalist parties in the Indian subcontinent. It is something the left has always tried to resist.  

Quote: 
There were cases where a lot of people joined Respect just before a selection meeting, turned up at to vote a certain way — and were never seen again when their nominee failed to get a candidacy. In Tower Hamlets members were signed up in large numbers by a few individuals. 

Quote: 
But after that his role very rapidly became rather different to that of the “tribune of the oppressed” that people in Respect expected from such a talented MP. There were complaints that he tended to leave much of his constituency work in Tower Hamlets to those whose salaries he paid out of his MP’s allowances. Instead he achieved the dubious record of being the fifth highest earning MPs, after Hague, Blunkett, Widdecombe and Boris Johnson) with £300,000 a year. Some Tribune of the People! 

He dealt a blow to everyone who was preparing to campaign for Respect in the 2006 local elections: he absented himself from politics for weeks to appear in the despicable “reality TV” show Celebrity Big Brother. Every active supporter of Respect was faced at work with people on the left saying they would never vote for us again and taunts from our enemies about cats. 


Quote: 
And defend him we did, at meetings of the Respect leadership, in an article putting the case in Socialist Worker and through statements on television by John Rees and others. We never, of course, got any thanks from Galloway for this, nor did the many thousands of Respect activists who were persuaded to stand firm because of our arguments 

Quote: 
There was one particular sad thing for us in this whole sorry saga. It was that three Socialist Worker Party members — two of long standing, the third a more recent recruit and former member of the Militant — chose not only to line up with George Galloway but also to help orchestrate the attacks on the SWP and the left councillors in Tower Hamlets. Nick initially accepted the central committee’s decision that he should not take the post of Respect national organiser and then, in circumstances that made clear his alignment with George Galloway’s faction, reversed the decision. 

We had no choice but to part company with the three and terminate their membership of the SWP. 


http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_cc.php 
this is the most wonderful document ever conceived, I will be laughing for a long time


----------



## mk12 (Nov 4, 2007)

> The Socialist Workers Party was resisting such a turn


----------



## emanymton (Nov 4, 2007)

mutley said:
			
		

> The swp cc reply:
> 
> http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_cc.php
> 
> passed by a delegate meeting yesterday..


Was it just presented as is then voted on or was it thrashed out at the meeting?
Any dissenting voices, votes against?


----------



## mutley (Nov 4, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Was it just presented as is then voted on or was it thrashed out at the meeting?
> Any dissenting voices, votes against?



There were dissenting voices but not many. Don't know much about details, i wasn't there.

Actually i reckon the lock-changing was timed to derail any compromise faction in the swp rank and file on sat. GG wants a break.


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Was it just presented as is then voted on or was it thrashed out at the meeting?
> Any dissenting voices, votes against?



The People's Delegates greeted the Politbureau's wise, thorough, dialectical, scientific analysis with a three-hour standing ovation.

The Politbureau's analysis and perspectives for the coming period were then  endorsed unanimously in a free and open vote.

*For:  112.9%
Against:  0.0%*​
In a brief address to the People's Delegates, the Great Leader noted that the toy tractor production quota had been overfullfilled twelve-fold and that there had again been a record beetroot harvest.







The People's Delegates then paraded out from the People's Palace of Democracy into the Square of The People's Friendship With Islam holding aloft garlanded portraits of the Great Leader.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 4, 2007)

You really are a wanker you know?


----------



## mutley (Nov 4, 2007)

from a comment on liam maccuaid's blog

'The document was agreed by yesterday’s Party Council meeting of 250 branch delegates and NC members with 2 votes against and 3 abstentions. Everyone who wished to speak against the document had peaking time. There seemed to be no packing of branch delegations and individuals who had been in the past critical of the CC overwhelming sided with them this time.'


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2007)

Great - a comment from a party loyalist endorsing the party loyalists prodceedings and a party loyalist document. How _valuable_.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2007)

mutley said:
			
		

> But quietly optimistic that the best elements in East London are with Respect (original and best) rather than Respect (celebrity). And hopeful that we'll build on a healthy base in Preston, Derbyshire and a lot of places where people would rather stay with an organisation that actually has branches.


what makes you think you can separate the two, in practice?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 4, 2007)

So basically although the SWP central committee has presided over this whole farce and defended Galloway and the people they now call communalists, despite the fact that they voted down a workers wage for MPs to appease Galloway and then voted down freedom of movement for the working class and extended abortion rights to appease reformist forces that never existed in RESPECT in any real numbers and despite the fact that they said from day one that RESPECT couldn't be "too socialist" they have done nothing wrong? Absolutely nothing. It's all Galloways fault. It's all the muslim community leaders fault. But nothing, absolutely nothing, is the fault of the SWP central committee.

And when, for four years, others pointed out the flaws in RESPECT that led to this and have caused this crisis they slammed them as sectarians and Islamophobes.

So what it is it now another zig zag and a turn to the class and propaganda group (sorry smallest mass party) that is the SWP? A turn to the movement and the STWC?

This whole thing is saddest of all because it's not been a political split (both sides say they want to continue to building RESPECT on roughly the same political platform), just like the SSP it's been about cliques, personalities and ever increasing bitter claims about the other side.

And now, on balance, the SWP has come out of it a smaller organisation and even more discredited. But has the CC learnt anything? Did they make even a single mistake? Of course not.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> his local RESPECT group (witch has quite serious roots)


oh really? SERIOUS 'roots'?
what the hell do you mean by roots?
how - _precisely_ - does a 4 year old party with f-all labour-organisation backing have 'serious roots'?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 4, 2007)

Just read on other site that RESPECT was an attempt to break from Labourism. Really?

So why when Galloway repeatedly said that RESPECT was in the tradition of Keir Hardie (who set up the Labour Party to counter the influence of marxism) did no-one on the SWP central committee pick him up on it?

RESPECT wasn't an attempt to break from Labourism, it was a continuation of that tradition.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 4, 2007)

> "Instead he achieved the dubious record of being the fifth highest earning MPs, after Hague, Blunkett, Widdecombe and Boris Johnson) with £300,000 a year. Some Tribune of the People!"



I remember MCS slating me for bringing this up. And SWP members on here either saying nothing or defending Galloway.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> RESPECT wasn't an attempt to break from Labourism, it was a continuation of that tradition.


this is exactly true; it is an attempt to fill the void left by new labour


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 4, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> Quote:
> There was no future in appealing to workers on just class or anti-war arguments (despite the success of Socialist Worker members Michael Lavallette and Ray Holmes in the May elections) and there had to be a shift towards courting “community leaders” . The Socialist Workers Party was resisting such a turn,
> 
> Quote:
> ...



"We have no interest in such manipulation" .. laughable


----------



## Loupylou (Nov 4, 2007)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> Does she still think gay rights is 'a shibboleth?'



I also heard her speak last year about women - she was repeating over and over again that anyone who criticises the Muslim practice of wearing the veil or the niqab are 'white [middle class] feminists'. Thereby letting any of the women present know that they would be subject to her ridicule if they got up to present any arguments about this practice. She has a hatred of feminists. Turned me right off and I left Respect after that. (I was drunk when I joined them....)
At their conference I was really embarrassed when some women arrived in niqab and the conference (apart from me) applauded them. How fucking patronising is that ?
No debate could be had there about Muslim oppression of women cos of German sitting there glowering and threatening to denounce from the platform any woman who wanted to discuss these issues as a 'white  feminist'. 
No mention of the Muslim / Arab /Iranian feminists - Respect & SWP don't like them.


----------



## Zeppo (Nov 4, 2007)

Duplicity and spin. I said before but SWP does not say in the latest missive from the Central Committee. Why were their leaders just a few weeks ago in secret talks with the GG side to leave Respect. Two meetings were convened, matters broke down and there was no resolution.

I wonder why SWP CC are reluctant to inform their members about these turn of events.

Urbs u can make up your mind on this. Incredible.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 4, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> oh really? SERIOUS 'roots'?
> what the hell do you mean by roots?
> how - _precisely_ - does a 4 year old party with f-all labour-organisation backing have 'serious roots'?


Because it goes back much further than RESPECT, he has spent 20+ years building up real links in local communities and unions and many of the people he has worked alongside over these past 2 decades lined up behind RESPECT.

He (and the rest of his SWP branch) has in effect been doing exactly what SWP members should do but which so few do in practice.


----------



## Loupylou (Nov 4, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> btw, just a few organisations the SWP has attempted to control and then destroyed or fatally weakened
> 
> The Campaign against The Criminal Justice Act
> Socialist Alliance
> ...



They get involved in a campaign and no matter how established and how well that campaign is doing, they sow division, direct it into a cul-de-sac, and destroy it.
half of me thinks they work for MI 5 or whatever. Sorry but the numbing predictability of what happens when they get involved means they are a fucking menace. 
They refuse to adopt tactics which involve _actually winning_ - they are terrified of winning. You'll never have a united left whilst these people are about, whether deliberatley or not, they do the establishement's job for them.


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2007)

Loupylou said:
			
		

> I also heard her speak last year about women - she was repeating over and over again that anyone who criticises the Muslim practice of wearing the veil or the niqab are 'white [middle class] feminists'. Thereby letting any of the women present know that they would be subject to her ridicule if they got up to present any arguments about this practice. She has a hatred of feminists. Turned me right off and I left Respect after that. (I was drunk when I joined them....)
> *At their conference I was really embarrassed when some women arrived in niqab and the conference (apart from me) applauded them. How fucking patronising is that ?*
> No debate could be had there about Muslim oppression of women cos of German sitting there glowering and threatening to denounce from the platform any woman who wanted to discuss these issues as a 'white  feminist'.
> No mention of the Muslim / Arab /Iranian feminists - Respect & SWP don't like them.



It's much worse than patronising.  It's a clear statement of where they stand even on differences and disagreements among Muslims.  They are "with the Islamists" (as Harman wrote that they should be).

It will be interesting to see if their pro-Islamism, enthusiasm for the niqab and general craven Islamophilia declines much, or at all, now that they have lost almost all their Muslim allies in al-Respeq.  My guess is that it won't.  We'll see.


----------



## PaulOK (Nov 4, 2007)

Loupylou said:
			
		

> half of me thinks they work for MI 5 or whatever. Sorry but the numbing predictability of what happens when they get involved means they are a fucking menace.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Many Trot watchers believe that MI5 have had an asset/s on the SWP CC for decades. This would be totally in line with the security service's _modus operandi _. While it is doubtful that MI5 would have directly inspired the ongoing split in RESPECT - all concerned are quite capable of fucking everything up unaided - MI5 have always fished in already troubled waters and would never give up an opportunity to worsen an already bad situation. Worth keeping an eye on.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2007)

PaulOK said:
			
		

> Many Trot watchers believe that MI5 have had an asset/s on the SWP CC for decades.


they're fucking idiots then


----------



## PaulOK (Nov 4, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> 888. Nobu Ono - Respect member and President of TVU Student Respect



Surely a made-up name - An amalgam of an over-priced Japanese eatery and the widow of a Beatle? Who can we expect to appear on the list next - Yo Sushi Mills?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 4, 2007)

> they're fucking idiots then



Given the state of the far left I would have though MI5 would have better things to do.

But while I don't think they'd bother with the SWP surely it's not outside the realms of possibility that MI5 would get people on leading bodies of far left groups? I thought that happened a fair bit in the 80s?

Even now it could be worth their while just to make sure the far left keeps making incompetent and ridiculous decisions. But mind you the far left doesn't really need any help in that department.


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2007)

Respect Renewal, the non-Social Working side of the split, now has its own website:  http://www.respectrenewal.org/


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> Quote:
> There was no future in appealing to workers on just class or anti-war arguments (despite the success of Socialist Worker members Michael Lavallette and Ray Holmes in the May elections) and there had to be a shift towards courting “community leaders” . The Socialist Workers Party was resisting such a turn,



Jerry Hicks makes a hasty (if unsurprising) disappearance from the pantheon of SWP working class heroes...no one say the word airbrush.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2007)

Mr Holmes may well dissapear as well if he goes with GG - the NUM and old labour links might well see him doinmg just that...


----------



## nwnm (Nov 4, 2007)

wishful thinking -and crap spelling- on your part


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2007)

In his impotent rage that i (and many many others) have been proven 100% spot on about RESPECT nwm is reduced to waffling on about spelling. Good stuff comrade.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 4, 2007)

if you are so right how come Ray Holmes hasn't lined up with Galloway then? You  and the other respect watchers change your tune on whats happening in respect more times than the juke box in my local and than claim to be right all along. Rage no: amusement at the ramblings of a bunch of internet train spotters - yes


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> if you are so right how come Ray Holmes hasn't lined up with Galloway then. You  and the other respect whatchers change your tune on whats happening in respect more times than the juke box in my local



I've changed not a jot about my criticisms of RESPECT back from the days when the CC was lying about being in talks with the PJP in brum. And, i've been proven 100% correct, despite being abused as a racist for holding those views. You may not like that, but there you go - it's why _you're_ actually the ones who've been forced into changing your tune - and fairly shabbily and transparently - and chnaged to a weak mirror of the views that i was called racist for putting forward  Great stuff.

As for Holmes, well he'll end up where he'll end up - the point was about the immediate airbrushing of Hicks, who only recently was being painted (by you maybe?) as one of the success stories of RESPECT and who was showing the way forward for 'the party'.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 4, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Mr Holmes may well dissapear as well if he goes with GG - the NUM and old labour links might well see him doinmg just that...


yeah right - not in this point


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I remember MCS slating me for bringing this up.




I didn't slate you for bringing it up. I disagreed with the idea that Galloway not taking dosh from some radio talk show making large profits was somehow a socialist gesture.


----------



## laptop (Nov 4, 2007)

Cheer up everyone 

The SWP Central Committee has clearly been reading u75 and accepted all the arguments put by non-lobotomised posters 

Just that from force of habit they've lied about what they've done 
The SWP is at war with Georgistan. The SWP has *always* been at war with Georgistan.
​Gorgeous George has equally obviously been paying equally close attention re: the failings of the SWP.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 4, 2007)

> I didn't slate you for bringing it up. I disagreed with the idea that Galloway not taking dosh from some radio talk show making large profits was somehow a socialist gesture



No I brought up the fact about him being the 5th highest paid MP. The SWP took your line at the time. Now they seemed, conveniently, to have changed their tune:



> "Instead he achieved the dubious record of being the fifth highest earning MPs, after Hague, Blunkett, Widdecombe and Boris Johnson) with £300,000 a year. Some Tribune of the People!"


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 4, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Mr Holmes may well dissapear as well if he goes with GG - the NUM and old labour links might well see him doinmg just that...



Holmes is a member of the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2007)

So were KO, RH etc

The point isn't about Holmes though - it's about Trotsky..i mean Hicks.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 4, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> No I brought up the fact about him being the 5th highest paid MP. The SWP took your line at the time. Now they seemed, conveniently, to have changed their tune:



I remember voting at the Socialist Alliance shutdown conference that all SA members who joined Respect and became councillors should have to take a workers wage, _against_ the SWP. So you're right cr.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> No I brought up the fact about him being the 5th highest paid MP. The SWP took your line at the time. Now they seemed, conveniently, to have changed their tune:



Well bully for them then. I haven't.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> wishful thinking -and crap spelling- on your part



nwnm - What about Jerry; time was not so long ago, that he was good enough for the pages of Socialist Worker, Socialist Review and Party Notes. Have his politics degenerated so very quickly or were you keeping quite about his failings all along for the sake of the Unity Coalition? You can see just how bad this sort of refusal to acknowledge your (as in the SWP's) past behaviour looks?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. any other SWPers please feel free to comment on the disappearance of Jerry Hicks. If Mutley still posts here any comment on his past appreciation of the Bristol shop steward; "If any left party could come up with 100 Jerry Hicks's with time to campaign they'd be laughing."


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2007)

To me, one of the worse things about the SWP/Respect project was its constant and shrill accusations of racist and islamaphobe(surely the most abused term going) to anyone who challenged their ideas or worldview. maybe, they will learn from this, I doubt it.


----------



## Loupylou (Nov 5, 2007)

*This has just been sent out by RESPECT:*

Dear Respect Member/Supporter,



Please find below two documents:

(1)     Renewing Respect, from Linda Smith and Salma Yaqoob

(2)     An invitation to the Respect Renewal Conference called by Linda Smith, Salma Yaqoob and 17 other National Council members

Apologies to anyone who gets this email twice!

====================================================================

(1) Renewing Respect



The following statement has been issued by Linda Smith, National Chair of Respect, and Salma Yaqoob, National Vice-Chair of Respect.



"Respect was founded to bring together people from divergent political backgrounds in a common struggle for peace, equality and justice.



         "It is now clear, however, that there is a fundamental and irretrievable breakdown in trust and relations between the SWP leadership and other parts of Respect.



"There can be no confidence in the legitimacy of the forthcoming Respect conference. The entire democratic process in Respect has been corrupted. If the conference goes ahead it will do no more than confirm that the SWP leadership is hijacking Respect for its own factional purposes. We will not be attending it.



"This breakdown in relations has occurred because the SWP leadership arrogantly refuses to countenance any situation in which they are not dominant and do not exercise control. They are determined to put the interests of the SWP above that of Respect.



"The sectarianism and 'control freak' methods of the SWP have led us to a situation where Respect is irretrievably split. The SWP leadership has supported the breakaway of four councillors from the Respect group in Tower Hamlets, who then went into coalition talks with the Liberal Democrats.



         "We have no intention of giving up the struggle for a pluralistic, democratic and broad left wing movement. We will therefore be holding a Respect Renewal conference to discuss the future for progressive politics in Britain today. We are confident that this conference will attract a broad range of support from those who are interested in discussing how we can work together in pursuit of common objectives.



"This renewal conference will take place in London on Saturday 17 November, and we urge as many people as possible to attend it.



         "Respect, in its current form, cannot continue. But it is in the interests of all us, including those in the wider left and anti-war movements, that this division is carried out in the most amicable manner possible - one that resolves any legal or organisational questions through negotiation.



         "Two meetings have taken place between us and the SWP Central Committee, in the presence of an independent chair respected by both sides. The independent chair confirmed to both groups that there was agreement that the relationship had come to an end, and that what we were discussing were proposals for an amicable resolution of any outstanding organisational questions. Just days later, the SWP backed the split in the Respect group on Tower Hamlets council and walked out of further negotiations.



         "We remain committed to finding a negotiated solution to these issues. And we understand that the independent person is willing to continue their efforts to bring the two sides together. We urge the SWP to seek to resolve outstanding legal and organisational questions through further negotiations, in the hope that these matters will not have to be resolved elsewhere."



====================================================================



(2) An invitation to the Respect Renewal Conference called by Linda Smith, Salma Yaqoob and 17 other National Council members


"We are inviting you to attend the Respect Renewal conference.


It will take place on Saturday 17 November, at the Bishopsgate Institute in London, from 11am to 5pm.


Speakers include George Galloway MP, Linda Smith, Cllr Salma Yaqoob, Ken Loach. There will be plenty of time for debate.


It will be an opportunity for all Respect members and others who want to continue the process of building a vibrant, radical, left alternative to New Labour to come together and discuss how to do this following the recent debilitating divisions that have split Respect.


It will be an opportunity to reflect on the mistaken methods and lack of political vision that have led to the split in Respect and to learn lessons on how to work together and with others in the future.


We remain committed to the radical policies which have been the cornerstone of Respect since its inception. Our organisational model is based on plurality, democracy and transparency.


For us, the acronym RESPECT   Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community and Trade Unions   remains as valid today as it did at our launch in 2004.


We want to build Respect but we also want to work together with all others who share a vision of a better, more equitable society, to create a broader, united party to represent the interests of all working-class people.


We want to reach out to all those in the anti-war movement who still need a voice for peace and against imperialism.


We want to reach out to all those concerned about climate change and the destruction of the environment.


We want to reach out to all those in the trade unions who feel betrayed by New Labour under Brown as under Blair.


We want to reach out to all those in the black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities who suffer racism and Islamophobia.


We want to reach out to all those who want to fight against discrimination, whether or the grounds of religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.


We want to reach out to the dispossessed, the asylum seeker, the migrant worker and to all who defend them.


If you want to reach out with us, come along and join in our discussion."


The Respect Renewal conference is called by the following Respect National Council members:


Linda Smith National Chair,

Salma Yaqoob National Vice-Chair,

Mobeen Azhar,

Ayesha Bajwa,

Victoria Brittain,

Rita Carter,

Ger Francis,

George Galloway MP,

Jerry Hicks,

John Lister,

Ken Loach,

Abdul Khalik,

Abdurahman Jafar,

Abjol Miah,

Bernie Parkes,

Yvonne Ridley,

Clive Searle,

Alan Thornett,

Nick Wrack.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 5, 2007)

I think the blogger, Splintered Sunrise, has been posting some of the best stuff on the recent Respect implosion. The latest post is a peach:

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, the SWP must be right: the dynamics of the Respect split


----------



## nwnm (Nov 5, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> To me, one of the worse things about the SWP/Respect project was its constant and shrill accusations of racist and islamaphobe(surely the most abused term going) to anyone who challenged their ideas or worldview. maybe, they will learn from this, I doubt it.


And maybe you should read jhe on the Karen Reisman thread


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2007)

Loupylou said:
			
		

> Dear Respect Member/Supporter,
> 
> 
> snip
> ...


I know both the supporters and detractors of respect will find this too important a topic to laugh about, but I find it pretty hard not to find hilarious.  "Respect Renewal"?  I can't believe it, the candidates are going to stand under New Respect. 

by the way



> _Who thought we'd see this day, Galloway and the respect members who support him have split from RESPECT including Salma Yaqoob and Yvonne Ridley, as SWP stole RESPECT.._ http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=442409
> 
> From the SWP/Respect website:
> 
> ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> And maybe you should read jhe on the Karen Reisman thread



And maybe you should look back in this thread and make some comment on the 'disappearance' of another victimised SWP trade union organiser.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> And maybe you should look back in this thread and make some comment on the 'disappearance' of another victimised SWP trade union organiser.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


don't understand that comment.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> don't understand that comment.



Vicitimised shop steward Jerry Hicks (also sacked for his TU activity and profile), often held up as an example of Respect's class politics on here, in the SW paper, in Socialist review and in party notes, is no longer acknowledged in that role. The work he did and the results he achieved have not changed. What has changed, is that now any acknowledgement of that work and those results cannot be mentioned as it would give credence to his criticisms of the SWP's behaviour with regard to Respect; so he has 'disappeared'.

Hope that is clear - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2007)

So..there's two Respects now?

I think a  is justified here.

Time to move on?


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 5, 2007)

Well yeah may be move on or back whatever to class politics.

Particularly supporting Karen Reissmann strike- key I think.

May be can someone contact Jerry Hicks?  Actually I will.  But may be someone who knows him (I've never met him) or is in his group- oresumably the expelled SWP opposition (presumably they'll be organising thier own group?)


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Nov 5, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> So..there's two Respects now?
> 
> I think a  is justified here.
> 
> Time to move on?



Another Respect split?  What happened to the first one?  Or is that happening next week?


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 5, 2007)

No not yet.  But get wth it.  What about doing something useful and writing a few e-mails on the Reissmann strike- eg. union branch, MP, news paper etc.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Nov 5, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> No not yet.  But get wth it.  What about doing something useful and writing a few e-mails on the Reissmann strike- eg. union branch, MP, news paper etc.



Will do


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 5, 2007)

OK thanks.  Sorry if I sounded tetchy


----------



## nwnm (Nov 5, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Vicitimised shop steward Jerry Hicks (also sacked for his TU activity and profile), often held up as an example of Respect's class politics on here, in the SW paper, in Socialist review and in party notes, is no longer acknowledged in that role. The work he did and the results he achieved have not changed. What has changed, is that now any acknowledgement of that work and those results cannot be mentioned as it would give credence to his criticisms of the SWP's behaviour with regard to Respect; so he has 'disappeared'.
> 
> Hope that is clear - Louis MacNeice



Well we can hardly run newspaper headlines with "Jerry Hicks is still sacked" written on them can we? Its not news! What do you expect us to do exactly? Have an annual Jerry Hicks demo like the Tolpuddle fucking martyrs?


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2007)

golly gosh, nwnm misses the point entirely!  one would think it was almost deliberate....


----------



## audiotech (Nov 5, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Vicitimised shop steward Jerry Hicks (also sacked for his TU activity and profile), often held up as an example of Respect's class politics on here, in the SW paper, in Socialist review and in party notes, is no longer acknowledged in that role. The work he did and the results he achieved have not changed. What has changed, is that now any acknowledgement of that work and those results cannot be mentioned as it would give credence to his criticisms of the SWP's behaviour with regard to Respect; so he has 'disappeared'.
> 
> Hope that is clear - Louis MacNeice



As mud.  

Disappeared?  Jumped in with Galloway last time I heard.  

Now, I would be interested in what you think about his political move? The point most people slagging the SWP here have avoided thus far?  

Anyway, he's was only expelled from the SWP a week, or so ago. It takes time to become a non-person.


----------



## Loupylou (Nov 5, 2007)

Hicks' name is in list of names re Respect Renewal conference (post #845) sent out this a.m.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 5, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> As mud.
> 
> Disappeared?  Jumped in with Galloway last time I heard.
> 
> ...



He wasn't expelled, he resigned.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> As mud.
> 
> Disappeared?  Jumped in with Galloway last time I heard.
> 
> ...



As Groucho said resigned not expelled. Aren't any SWPers asking themselves why someone like Hicks should not only resign from their organisation but choose to do so in the way he did, with a very public and very critical letter?

Disapeared as in removed from the SWP's version of events; his result in Bristol still stands and if it was a sign of Respect's class aproach when it happened it is still a sign of that now. Why choose to remove one of your past achievements; unless of course the questions it raises are too tricky to handle (and the guilt by association phrase 'jumped in with Galloway' certainly doesn't cut it)?

have another go - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 6, 2007)

Here's a good one ...

Can anyone explain how the unelected and unaccountable 'Conference Arrangements Committee' has now reduced the SWP's Rally on 17th November to just one day ...?  

Presumably, there won't be any business to discuss as it will all have been sorted out at the SWP caucus beforehand, with no need to debate any issues or take resolutions?


----------



## Jografer (Nov 6, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> As Groucho said resigned not expelled. Aren't any SWPers asking themselves why someone like Hicks should not only resign from their organisation but choose to do so in the way he did, with a very public and very critical letter?
> 
> Disapeared as in removed from the SWP's version of events; *his result in Bristol still stands *and if it was a sign of Respect's class aproach when it happened it is still a sign of that now. Why choose to remove one of your past achievements; unless of course the questions it raises are too tricky to handle (and the guilt by association phrase 'jumped in with Galloway' certainly doesn't cut it)?
> 
> have another go - Louis MacNeice



What result is that, taking a £100,000 pay-off after declaring he wasn't for sale or losing a council election ......


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> What result is that, taking a £100,000 pay-off after declaring he wasn't for sale or losing a council election ......



You are missing the point by some margin; why not go back and have another read?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jografer (Nov 6, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> You are missing the point by some margin; why not go back and have another read?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Sorry.... grumpy day...


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 6, 2007)

Hicks resigned it is true but only after being asked to make a loyalty pledge to the SWP - he was in effect made to either come into line or rsign- he was pushed out.

I don;t think we should support the SWP or Galloway's way in this- we should instead be for grassroots democratic revival of working clsass militancy and from this form a netowrk and movement of working class activists up and down the country that could among other things consider standing in elections as a springboard to winning more people to militant class poltics rather than just winning votes.  

To soem extent both sides of Respect will at least partly agree with what i've written but it needs to become concrete.

An important test for this will be the Reissmann strike that along with trying to build a no vote in the CWU and a real rank and file is one of if not the most important labour dispute in Britain today I think- as a test case in itself.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 6, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Here's a good one ...
> 
> Can anyone explain how the unelected and unaccountable 'Conference Arrangements Committee' has now reduced the SWP's Rally on 17th November to just one day ...?
> 
> Presumably, there won't be any business to discuss as it will all have been sorted out at the SWP caucus beforehand, with no need to debate any issues or take resolutions?



Apparently this is covered in SWP Party Notes if anyone has a copy (?).  

The SWP proposed that the "conference" be reduced to one day with a greatly curtailed agenda to be issued shortly, and a new conference in the new year.  The unelected 'Conference Arrangements Committee' have endorsed this proposal from the SWP (surprise, surprise!).  There will be a social at the end of the day to revive flagging morale and offer everyone who isn't already in it the chance of joining the SWP.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 6, 2007)

fishers oate will of course be going to the 'other' event to bask in the reflective rays of Britain's answer to Enva Hoxha ......


----------



## dennisr (Nov 6, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Britain's answer to Enva Hoxha ......



my, how the previously arse-lickingly contrite worms have turned


----------



## Jografer (Nov 6, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> my, how the previously arse-lickingly contrite worms have turned



CC instructions, innit....


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 6, 2007)

> my, how the previously arse-lickingly contrite worms have turned



That's what's so politically bankcrupt about what the SWP has done.

Despite the fact that RESPECTS flaws were pointed out to the SWP loads of times over the last four years the SWP now acts as if it acknowledged them all along, when in fact they were calling people Islamophobes and sectarians.

Not only were the SWP uncritical of Galloway they gave him standing ovations and gushing introductions at every meeting.

But that's the problem with bureaucratic versions of democratic centralism, the internal culture becomes stalinist and cultish and whatever orders are handed down by the leadership are accepted as correct. Sadly the SWP leadership seem to have learnt nothing from this.

I have to say though, and I don't mean this as a dig, I think the same political flaws that underpinned RESPECT are also in the method of the CNWP.


----------



## JHE (Nov 6, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Apparently this is covered in SWP Party Notes if anyone has a copy (?).
> 
> The SWP proposed that the "conference" be reduced to one day with a greatly curtailed agenda to be issued shortly, and a new conference in the new year.  The unelected 'Conference Arrangements Committee' have endorsed this proposal from the SWP (surprise, surprise!).  There will be a social at the end of the day to revive flagging morale and offer everyone who isn't already in it the chance of joining the SWP.



It's all very well serving up the Mecca Cola, but will there be prayer rooms?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 6, 2007)

What a climb-down!  Reduced to one day, resolutions limited to 'the internal structure' and emergencies.  Social afterwards (non-alcoholic bar available!).

This is an SWP rally and nothing else.




> Saturday 17th November 2007
> 
> ...
> This year, due to extraordinary circumstances, the conference will be a one-day conference concentrating on how we move forward from the recent disputes within Respect (sic). It will be an important opportunity for members to discuss their vision for Respect (sic), set campaigning priorities and take democratic decisions on the future of our organisation.
> ...


----------



## dennisr (Nov 6, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> the method of the CNWP.



explain to me "the method of the CNWP" ???? (and I might be able to work out how this is not a somewhat pointless dig...)


----------



## nwnm (Nov 6, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I have to say though, and I don't mean this as a dig.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 6, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

>



Are you reduced to grimaces now?


----------



## nwnm (Nov 6, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> Are you reduced to grimaces now?


no - but our last 2 posts crossed over, and both concurred that somebody was in fact having a dig. Is there a problem?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 6, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> no - but our last 2 posts crossed over, and both concurred that somebody was in fact having a dig. Is there a problem?



what 2 minutes to add smilies?


----------



## nwnm (Nov 6, 2007)

i put too many on and the mods made me take some off...


----------



## chilango (Nov 6, 2007)

so nwnm....still inferring that Respect Renewal smashed up one of your lot's windows?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 6, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> so nwnm....still inferring that Respect Renewal smashed up one of your lot's windows?



mate of enver hoxhas apparently...


----------



## chilango (Nov 6, 2007)

Is this a haggard looking Galloway trying to hide after chucking the brick?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2007)

In happier times..

http://bp3.blogger.com/_ZAn-ABmM9m4...76Ta582ShpQ/s1600-h/George,+John+&+German.BMP


----------



## JHE (Nov 6, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> In happier times..
> 
> http://bp3.blogger.com/_ZAn-ABmM9m4...76Ta582ShpQ/s1600-h/George,+John+&+German.BMP



What a threesome!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> What a threesome!


a family at war...

[I always thought the family that prays together, stays together? ]


----------



## chilango (Nov 6, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> What a threesome!




 

Read the FAQ won't you....



> 9. Gore/shock-fest/explicit pics and porn are unacceptable,



*shudders*


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Read the FAQ won't you....
> 
> 
> 
> *shudders*


Don't worry, there can be no progeny.  Monotone Centralised Trot Boss cannot breed with Religio-Communal Stalinist Villa Owner.  Its the law of nature and should have been heeded at the start of this sorry affair.


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> What result is that, taking a £100,000 pay-off after declaring he wasn't for sale or losing a council election ......


you worthless hypocritical cunt.  remind me which bookshop manager said he'd never 'sell his job' at Bt, then did exactly that on instructions from the CC?

And remind me where the SWP have condmened Hicks previously for doing so.

Oh, they didnt, he was a great class warrior and SWP hero until a week ago.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 6, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> As Groucho said resigned not expelled. Aren't any SWPers asking themselves why someone like Hicks should not only resign from their organisation but choose to do so in the way he did, with a very public and very critical letter?
> 
> Disapeared as in removed from the SWP's version of events; his result in Bristol still stands and if it was a sign of Respect's class aproach when it happened it is still a sign of that now. Why choose to remove one of your past achievements; unless of course the questions it raises are too tricky to handle (and the guilt by association phrase 'jumped in with Galloway' certainly doesn't cut it)?
> 
> have another go - Louis MacNeice



'...if you're hard enough'. You listen to Galloway on Talksport too?  

Alright, he resigned then. I stand corrected.  

Hicks letter contained very little in the way of politics and mainly focusses on organisational issues. I find it hard to take that particular kind of criticism of the SWP seriously considering that Hicks was a member at the time and a national committee member to boot. 

I left the SWP way back in 1989, so if there are any 'achievements' since that time they're nowt to do with me.  

By 'jumped in' I meant of course politically joining Galloway's populist forces. Any further comments on that political move by Hicks?


----------



## nwnm (Nov 6, 2007)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13473

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13472

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13486

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13475

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13474


----------



## articul8 (Nov 6, 2007)

> In 1903 the Russian Mensheviks broke with the Bolsheviks, seemingly over the wording of a constitution and personal antagonism with Lenin. In reality the split centred on the Mensheviks’ retreat from the necessity of revolution.
> 
> The split in Respect is no different from this historical pattern.



Yes, the split in Respect is undoubtedly an event of world historical proportion


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13473
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13472
> 
> ...


that quote from Maxine is funny, she's been practically in hiding these last two weeks!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 6, 2007)

> explain to me "the method of the CNWP" ???? (and I might be able to work out how this is not a somewhat pointless dig...)



nwmn just because you can't help making needlessly diggy posts doesn't mean we're all like it.

Dennisr there is little point in me going over everything again, we know each others view on it, but I've always said that I think the political methodology behind RESPECT and the CNWP is a very similar one.

It basically involves revolutionaries helping to set up a reformist organisation (one in the tradition of Keir Hardie as Galloway might put it). And I think there is a big difference between revolutionaries entering into a reformist organisation that is thrown up by class struggle and real working class forces and tiny revolutionary left organisation trying to help to form one and if necessary acting as shadow reformists by voting down politics that they actually stand for.

But as said, it wasn't a dig, it's just a difference of opinion, and we've had this debate loads of times.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 6, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> I don;t think we should support the SWP or Galloway's way in this- we should instead be for grassroots democratic revival of working clsass militancy and from this form a netowrk and movement of working class activists up and down the country that could among other things consider standing in elections as a springboard to winning more people to militant class poltics rather than just winning votes. .



i don't understand what you mean .. what like a "real respect" party? what small leftist group would be in the background??


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 6, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13473
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13472
> 
> ...



The public meeting in Manchester this evening was interesting - Galloway, Yaqoob, Lavalette and Reissman.


----------



## punkrockfaggot (Nov 6, 2007)

i don't read faacts and figures, and i know less names than it takes to make me sound like iv'e studied- i don't care.

I just want to know one thing-

How likely is this going to inflict damage on the SWP and Wespect?


----------



## yourmom (Nov 6, 2007)

*Galloway and Lavalette etc*

Was there any mention of the split? How did they seem together?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13472



This one is interesting, containing as it does:



> The most extreme case is the Scottish Socialist Party, which has effectively collapsed since a faction within the leadership decided to drive Tommy Sheridan out.



Clearly, the Social Workers are trying to maintain the title of 'Tommy's best friend'.  Gorgeous though is also his mate and fellow 'big man'.  Who is gonna get Tommy's hand?  I dread to think what slavering overtures are being made at the moment.  The SWP CC will be sending a delegation up the East Coast Line as we speak.  Expect declarations that 'Tommy loves us more than the other lot' any moment.


----------



## mutley (Nov 7, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The public meeting in Manchester this evening was interesting - Galloway, Yaqoob, Lavalette and Reissman.



Any chance of a longer report? It does seem odd that everyone managed to stay on the platform in the current circumstances.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 7, 2007)

> Any chance of a longer report? It does seem odd that everyone managed to stay on the platform in the current circumstances.



Not really you'd have to be a total sectarian to let whats going on get in the way with Karen R's campaign.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13473
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13472
> 
> ...


just read all these - unbelievably shallow drivel.

"In Sheffield, Tower Hamlets, Preston and many other areas across the country, Respect supporters from Muslim backgrounds have defied the stereotypes and backed the left in this dispute rather than their so-called “community leaders”."

why are there so few names of muslim origin on the swp 'petition' then? (all of 4 from sheffield! a maximum of one yemeni)

"Student Respect groups which have mushroomed across the campuses"

why just now?  one must ask, are they all, like the TVU 'group' fictitious and unrecognised by their local SU's?  One might almost think they were a desperate ploy by an organisation which has managed to piss off its already small periphery.

"This [the required lock changing] denied Respect’s staff and officers access to the building – thus ensuring there were no Respect placards on the NHS Together demonstration last Saturday."

there are no printshops within that office are there? Being locked out of a room does not stop one printing placards.  This would appear to be a straightforward lie.

Where are the names of recent(ish) SWP CC mmbers Pat Stack, Julie Waterson, and Dave Hayes on this 'petition'.

If the SWP really has 6,000 members, how come barely 1,000 of them have signed this petition? Did the other 5,000 break discipline by refusing to join Respect?  What disciplinary action is going to be taken against tem?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

This attack on "community leaders" sounds like plain old Islamophobia to me


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 7, 2007)

yourmom said:
			
		

> Was there any mention of the split? How did they seem together?



I only heard the speeches.  Lots of mutual backslapping and praise for each other.  Very vague references to 'whatever differences we have in Respect, we need to ...'.  Lavalette praised Galloway and Yaqoob and said he wanted a Respect with both of them in.  No hint of the tone in SW that 'Galloway was a witch hunter who had walked away from Respect'.  Apparently the speeches will be on Youtube.

I didn't stay for questions though - so there might have been some reference to it there.  About 100 people there.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 7, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> just read all these - unbelievably shallow drivel.
> 
> "In Sheffield, Tower Hamlets, Preston and many other areas across the country, Respect supporters from Muslim backgrounds have defied the stereotypes and backed the left in this dispute rather than their so-called “community leaders”."
> 
> ...



Only one muslim from Preston signed, and he has doubts and admits he knows very little about the situation.  

They also list the name of the former SWP full timer for Lancashire as 'Preston' - she left in the summer and now lives in Leeds, her leaving party is on the Preston Respect website!  She told me that if Lavalette was not a councillor she would not have been in Preston - 'Lancaster has more conventional students and is better for recruitment to the SWP'.  There are very few muslims in Lancaster btw, lots in Preston; the largest proportion of Preston students are mature working class living at home, most Lancaster students are young on campus away from home for the first time - no students from Preston have signed, several have from Lancaster, who were also dragged down to the Preston Respect meeting as voting fodder.  The SWP claim to have created a vibrant Preston branch in their preconference bulletin, but I've seen no evidence of it.  The former Respect councillor in Preston has not signed it and at least one other ex-Labour signatory has expressed doubts in private.

There's also a fictitious 'Pendle Respect' listed by one signer - there has never been a Pendle Respect, or any activity by Respect whatsoever in Pendle. Pendle has a massive muslim population. The last Lancaster Respect meeting was a halfhearted effort several years ago and the SWP gave up because so few people came.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> This attack on "community leaders" sounds like plain old Islamophobia to me


he he


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There's also a fictitious 'Pendle Respect' listed by one signer - there has never been a Pendle Respect, or any activity by Respect whatsoever in Pendle. Pendle has a massive muslim population.


aah, dickie mcsween, nice chap, wrong end of town from all those muslims.  said he'd vote tory to stop the bnp...


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 7, 2007)

mutley said:
			
		

> Any chance of a longer report? It does seem odd that everyone managed to stay on the platform in the current circumstances.



http://action-without-theory.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-love-and-respect_06.html

Interestingly Andrew Murray is speaking at Respect (R) conference with Tariq Ramadan, Rose Gentle and Sami Ramadani.

Personally I hope even at the last minute of the 11th hour Respect can re-unite


----------



## articul8 (Nov 7, 2007)

Galloway


> I'm not a Marxist, a Communist, a Leninist, or any kind of ist.



Socialist?

Lavalette has always seemed quite close to Galloway.  Makes you wonder whether the remaining SWPers are more split over the latest turn than might appear


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 7, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Preston students are mature working class living at home, most Lancaster students are young on campus away from home for the first time - no students from Preston have signed, several have from Lancaster, who were also dragged down to the Preston Respect meeting as voting fodder.



Who voted from Lancaster, Picking?


----------



## JHE (Nov 7, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Personally I hope even at the last minute of the 11th hour Respect can re-unite



A vain hope!  The best you could reasonably hope for is that the rival factions don't stand against each other in elections (and that there is no more violence between them).

It's going to be fun if and when they do stand against each other!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> A vain hope!  The best you could reasonably hope for is that the rival factions don't stand against each other in elections (and that there is no more violence between them).
> 
> It's going to be fun if and when they do stand against each other!


Gonna be a big custody battle over the megaphones and Palestinian scarves.


----------



## Macullam (Nov 7, 2007)

*Latest SWP Party notes Respect Here to Stay *

http://socialistunity.com/


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 7, 2007)

It's like those old episodes in Doctor Who where thoseDaleks loyal to Davros (their original creator) and those Daleks loyal to the new-fangled "Supreme Dalek" would end up fighting each other!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

*A naive/serious question...*

Wonder if anyone in the swp wants to give a personal answer on this:  You've been spending the last few years defending the link up with Muslim activism, saying there's no contradiction between that and a socialist line.  You've been defending George Galloway, Selma Yacoob and the like.  You've been fending off anarchist (and other) criticisms of the whole Respect project.

How do you feel now - having to claim that there *is *a contradiction between socialist and 'communal' politics - having to claim that Galloway et al are now treacherous.  Hows all that going down for you personally?  Do you feel betrayed - or at least embarrassed?  

This isn't just me continuing the attack by another means - I'd (genuinely) appreciate an answer as to whether this is twisting your guts.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Wonder if anyone in the swp wants to give a personal answer on this:  You've been spending the last few years defending the link up with Muslim activism, saying there's no contradiction between that and a socialist line.  You've been defending George Galloway, Selma Yacoob and the like.  You've been fending off anarchist (and other) criticisms of the whole Respect project.
> 
> How do you feel now - having to claim that there *is *a contradiction between socialist and 'communal' politics - having to claim that Galloway et al are now treacherous.  Hows all that going down for you personally?  Do you feel betrayed - or at least embarrassed?
> 
> This isn't just me continuing the attack by another means - I'd (genuinely) appreciate an answer as to whether this is twisting your guts.



Well it is easy to portray the whole thing in these terms. It is also inevitably going to be the case that with any such acrimonious split the rhetoric is going to get nasty, but is understandable when you are dealing with a **** like Galloway, lol. Galloway only knows to behave like a Rotweiler which is quite tolerable when he is attacking Tories, war-mongers, New Labour etc, but has been extremely damaging within Respect. He has repeatedly threatened to walk out when he hasn't got his way. At one point Ken Loach and at another Salma Yaqoob were seemingly happy to see him go.

There is no automatic trajectory to linking up with Muslim activists and 'communal' politics. In fact that would be a bit of a slur. 'Communal' politics has been the stuff of local politics in the UK for years - the Lib Dems and LP being practitioners on a local level for many years. The Muslim community is divided by class, there is a left and a right. Respect was never envisaged as an organisation that would become the preserve of 'community leaders' who would use the organisation as a platform to get individuals elected on a fairly conservative platform. As this became a growing problem with Tower Hamlets and, to a lesser extent in Birmingham, the aim was to fight these tendencies politically but to avoid breaking the dispute onto the national arena. The sucesses in Bolsover and Preston and the GLA election campaign would help win the political argument by example we hoped. Unfortunately, Galloway's public intervention and a growing dispute with Salma Yaqoob over these issues forced the dispute out into the open. However, instead of arguing them out and relying on the democratic structures of Respect, Galloway declared all out war and displayed contempt for internal democracy.

As far as Galloway is concerned he has a magnificant anti-Imperialist record. His performance at the Senate was a great boost to the anti-war movement and to Respect. His subsequent disappearance into the Big Brother house undid the good he had done and Respect paid the price electorally. His absence from his constiuency also caused problems and supporters drifted away. Respect still grew in TH but only in one community and based on community leaders, and the balance of forces shifted to the right within Respect TH. 

Many of the criticisms such as of working with Muslims or reformists have been wrong. The SWP never supported the turn towards community leaders nor Galloway's behaviour. At the time of BB we made clear our unhappiness with that whilst defending Galloway's record. That was the right thing to do.

However, within Respect we have been opposing such damaging tendancies. 

Personally, I think that some of those who have gone with Galloway's camp will realise they have got it wrong. In the short term there is no doubt that the split will be damaging to the left. However, it is clear that rival tendancies within Respect were pulling in irreconcilable directions.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Well it is easy to portray the whole thing in these terms. It is also inevitably going to be the case that with any such acrimonious split the rhetoric is going to get nasty, but is understandable when you are dealing with a **** like Galloway, lol. Galloway only knows to behave like a Rotweiler which is quite tolerable when he is attacking Tories, war-mongers, New Labour etc, but has been extremely damaging within Respect. He has repeatedly threatened to walk out when he hasn't got his way. At one point Ken Loach and at another Salma Yaqoob were seemingly happy to see him go.
> 
> There is no automatic trajectory to linking up with Muslim activists and 'communal' politics. In fact that would be a bit of a slur. 'Communal' politics has been the stuff of local politics in the UK for years - the Lib Dems and LP being practitioners on a local level for many years. The Muslim community is divided by class, there is a left and a right. Respect was never envisaged as an organisation that would become the preserve of 'community leaders' who would use the organisation as a platform to get individuals elected on a fairly conservative platform. As this became a growing problem with Tower Hamlets and, to a lesser extent in Birmingham, the aim was to fight these tendencies politically but to avoid breaking the dispute onto the national arena. The sucesses in Bolsover and Preston and the GLA election campaign would help win the political argument by example we hoped. Unfortunately, Galloway's public intervention and a growing dispute with Salma Yaqoob over these issues forced the dispute out into the open. However, instead of arguing them out and relying on the democratic structures of Respect, Galloway declared all out war and displayed contempt for internal democracy.
> 
> ...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho so are you saying that the SWP got absolutely nothing wrong?



> Many of the criticisms such as of working with Muslims or reformists have been wrong.



Sorry but this is just a slur. Left critics of RESPECT never said these things (well not many anyway). The criticism was about relating to Muslim communities on a class basis and of revolutionaries not dropping their politics.

Galloway has been saying for ages that RESPECT followed in the anti-marxist tradition of Keir Hardie. He openly said that his religious and anti-abortion views won RESPECT votes. But the SWP remained silent on this, instead giving Galloway standing ovations at every meeting (which personally I always thought were totally sychophantic).

The SWP claimed that RESPECT came out of the anti-war movement, but it didn't. It was a lash up between the SWP and Galloway and however well intended (I'm sure the SWP had their heart in the right place), meant that the SWP had to act as the shadow reformist forces that never materialised and had to vote down socialist politics at conference, even claiming RESPECT couldn't be "too socialist".


----------



## treelover (Nov 7, 2007)

says it all




> She told me that if Lavalette was not a councillor she would not have been in Preston - 'Lancaster has more conventional students and is better for recruitment to the SWP


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> The sucesses in Bolsover and Preston and the GLA election campaign would help win the political argument by example we hoped.



And Bristol...don't forget Bristol.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> And Bristol...don't forget Bristol.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



It was a good vote in Bristol for a working class militant, though the two I have quoted were elected.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> At one point Ken Loach and at another Salma Yaqoob were seemingly happy to see him [GG] go.


which rather disproves the SWP's lie that everyone but them are involved in a 'Galloway faction'.  You can't even keep your lies straight.  Pathetic.


----------



## chilango (Nov 7, 2007)

just seen this:



> Derek Wall, Principal Male Seaker of the Green Party of England and Wales will be speaking at the Respect Renewal conference on 17th November, in a personal capacity.



****opens own party up for attack *****

Personally, I have huge issues with the whole Respect project as seen by both sides in this dispute. BUT that does't mean we shouldn't engage in dialog with them.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> which rather disproves the SWP's lie that everyone but them are involved in a 'Galloway faction'.  You can't even keep your lies straight.  Pathetic.



The SWP have said no such thing. The majority of unalligned REspect activists in the majority of areas are certainly not suporting the Galloway split, although - for the moment - Ken Loach and Salma Yaqoob are.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2007)

yes they have, and the idea that the majority of unaligned activists are with Respect seems to hold no water.  We'll see on the day of the conferences, but I'd be rather surprised if there were more non-swp members at your conference than at the other one


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Gonna be a big custody battle over the megaphones and Palestinian scarves.


----------



## laptop (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Gonna be a big custody battle over the megaphones and Palestinian scarves.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

*On the psychiatrists couch...*




			
				Groucho said:
			
		

> Well it is easy to portray the whole thing in these terms. It is also inevitably going to be the case that with any such acrimonious split the rhetoric is going to get nasty, but is understandable when you are dealing with a **** like Galloway, lol. Galloway only knows to behave like a Rotweiler which is quite tolerable when he is attacking Tories, war-mongers, New Labour etc, but has been extremely damaging within Respect. He has repeatedly threatened to walk out when he hasn't got his way. At one point Ken Loach and at another Salma Yaqoob were seemingly happy to see him go.
> 
> There is no automatic trajectory to linking up with Muslim activists and 'communal' politics. In fact that would be a bit of a slur. 'Communal' politics has been the stuff of local politics in the UK for years - the Lib Dems and LP being practitioners on a local level for many years. The Muslim community is divided by class, there is a left and a right. Respect was never envisaged as an organisation that would become the preserve of 'community leaders' who would use the organisation as a platform to get individuals elected on a fairly conservative platform. As this became a growing problem with Tower Hamlets and, to a lesser extent in Birmingham, the aim was to fight these tendencies politically but to avoid breaking the dispute onto the national arena. The sucesses in Bolsover and Preston and the GLA election campaign would help win the political argument by example we hoped. Unfortunately, Galloway's public intervention and a growing dispute with Salma Yaqoob over these issues forced the dispute out into the open. However, instead of arguing them out and relying on the democratic structures of Respect, Galloway declared all out war and displayed contempt for internal democracy.
> 
> ...


Well, two cheers for Groucho for having a go.   However, that just sounds like a political justification - a discussion of events, a commentary on your opponents.  Wasn't really what i was after.  What i was interested in was *how all this made you feel *- defending people and an alliance against all attacks, pretending all the different groupings fit together without problem - then suddenly going into reverse and denouncing your former comrades.  Is there not even a little bit of you that finds it difficult?


----------



## chilango (Nov 7, 2007)

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=984#comment-14368

Is interesting...anyone there?


----------



## mk12 (Nov 7, 2007)

http://www.iwca.info/cgi-bin/iwcanews.pl?record=28

IWCA angle on it. 



> “Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities who suffer racism and Islamophobia” are all referenced. As are “the dispossessed, the asylum seeker, the migrant worker and to all who defend them.” Not forgotten either are “those who want to fight against discrimination, whether or the grounds of religion, gender, sexual orientation disability or age.”
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely absent however are the principle victims of the system they sustain; the indigenous working class majority discriminated against on the grounds of their birth and the social class they are born into. This oversight can hardly be considered to be accidental. For after all, the multicultural strategy, from which the likes of the Socialist Alliance and Respect, like to draw inspiration continues to regard the white working class majority as little more than an enemy that ought to be made to bend the knee, or better still be defeated by the lovingly name-checked and more deserving oppressed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 7, 2007)

The East London Advertiser has another article claiming that the Respect Independent group in Tower Hamlets had coalition talks with the Lib Dems. It claims that Rahman told them that he decided against a deal.

The only direct quote from Rahman indicates that discussions happened and that no coalition will be formed, but is ambiguous about whether forming some kind of pact with the Lib Dems was under discussion. See Socialist Unity for details.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 7, 2007)

The fact they would even consider working with the Lib Dems is pretty disgusting.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Well, two cheers for Groucho for having a go.   However, that just sounds like a political justification - a discussion of events, a commentary on your opponents.  Wasn't really what i was after.  What i was interested in was *how all this made you feel *- defending people and an alliance against all attacks, pretending all the different groupings fit together without problem - then suddenly going into reverse and denouncing your former comrades.  Is there not even a little bit of you that finds it difficult?



 2 very good/interesting posts 4thwrite .. but sadly from my close experiance ( going back to 77) of the sw few i woukld think have the political or emotional maturity to even understand your questions .. which is er part of teh problem!


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 7, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> http://www.iwca.info/cgi-bin/iwcanews.pl?record=28
> 
> IWCA angle on it.



yup .. spot on as pretty well always


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2007)

except for the fact that the para mk12 quoted isn't entirely true.....


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Well, two cheers for Groucho for having a go.   However, that just sounds like a political justification - a discussion of events, a commentary on your opponents.  Wasn't really what i was after.  What i was interested in was *how all this made you feel *- defending people and an alliance against all attacks, pretending all the different groupings fit together without problem - then suddenly going into reverse and denouncing your former comrades.  Is there not even a little bit of you that finds it difficult?



Well I don't accept entirely that we ignored the problems, what we didn't do was line up with enemies of the whole project who were denouncing from the outside.

But as to your principle question how all this made me _*feel*_:

I felt like chocolate ice cream for a while.

More recently the falling out with former comrades and the mess that all this has created has led me to search deeply within myself, to meditate in order to connect with my inner flame. This alll coincided with Samhain so I was able to seek guidance and inspiration from my ancestors. This made me feel like Autumn leaves blowing on the wind. I connected then with a grand old oak and in my dreams I saw atop this magnificant tree a purple crow. Consequently I am considering leaving Marxism and Atheism behind in order to find my true path which I am sure will be Anarchism and Witchcraft; for this is the advice I have received from the aforementioned bird. My inner being remains Surrealist. I seek guidance from the Tarot as to the future of Respect and the final card I turn over is Death. Which incidentally is an indication of great change and rupture and not demise.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 7, 2007)

The working class (all of it) is shat upon daily, but I don't see how in particular the British born working class majority are 'discriminated against', or even 'the principle victims'?

It's political correctness gone mad I tell you.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> 2 very good/interesting posts 4thwrite .. but sadly from my close experiance ( going back to 77) of the sw few i woukld think have the political or emotional maturity to even understand your questions .. which is er part of teh problem!


Yes, at one level I'm obviously involved in the attack, in the malevolent glee about all this - but there's also part of me that wonders how this works out personally.  To carry on doing politics and sticking with a line or supporting an organisation it has to be worthwhile in terms of your self image or values - it has to 'work' in terms of who you are.  I personally ceased to be tribal in the mid 80s when i left the labour party.  Even now, in terms of anarchism, I couldn't imagine pinning my colours to a mast or having to defend a position.  My loyalties are more personal - even if the personal occassionally maps onto an event, a movement or protest.   Thats why i feel genuine bemusement as to how people can be involved in self deception over things like the Respect wars.  When the primary motivation is defending the party - not making choices and doing what you think is right, i suspect that's not too good for mental health.

E2a: that all sounds a bit worthy.    Expecting to get the reaction like the priest in the Father Ted Aiplane episode who suggests 'having an old pray'


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 7, 2007)

What do the IWCA mean the indigneous working class?

we should support the whole working class not just the indigenous- wherever a worker is born is irrelevant- its where s/he works now.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

GrouchoMore recently the falling out with former comrades and the mess that all this has created has led me to search deeply within myself said:
			
		

> I didn't exect that!   Didn't know you were into that (or are you?  No smileys - is he toying with me?)


----------



## Red Leicester (Nov 7, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> What do the IWCA mean the indigneous working class?



Good question, UR!

Yourdictionary.com defines "indigenous" as:

adjective

   1. existing, growing, or produced naturally in a region or country; belonging (to) as a native
   2. innate; inherent; inborn

Etymology: LL indigenus < L indegena: see indigene


Do you think they mean "white"?

Does "white working class" really express the nature of the working class in 21st century in Britain?


----------



## JHE (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> I didn't exect that!   Didn't know you were into that (or are you?  No smileys - is he toying with me?)



He's joking.

It wouldn't be allowed anyway.  Paganism doesn't go down at all well with the mosque mob.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho's bedroom earlier


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> He's joking.
> 
> It wouldn't be allowed anyway.  Paganism doesn't go down at all well with the mosque mob.


why haven't you been beheaded yet?


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

An SWP branch meeting somewhere in Essex


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Groucho's bedroom earlier


Artex eh? Explains a lot.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Artex eh? Explains a lot.



That's woodchip wallpaper, funnily enough there is artex on my downstairs and hall walls. But that is not really my alter, though I do in fact have one.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> That's woodchip wallpaper, funnily enough there is artex on my downstairs and hall walls. But that is not really my alter, though I do in fact have one.


I've always associated woodchip with the Fourth International.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> I've always associated woodchip with the Fourth International.



You are right. That alter pic was taken around a friend's. He's a member of Socialist Appeal.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> You are right. That alter pic was taken around a friend's. He's a member of Socialist Appeal.


thank fuck for that.  Momentarily my pantheon was out of kilter with the Wickes catalogue


----------



## Groucho (Nov 7, 2007)

I have a spirit guide named Fat Baz don't you know


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 8, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> What do the IWCA mean the indigneous working class?
> 
> we should support the whole working class not just the indigenous- wherever a worker is born is irrelevant- its where s/he works now.



you haven't read the whole article have you?

"...the strategy followed by the IWCA, that from the outset consciously departed from the aforementioned orthodoxy in order *to embrace the entire working class without fear or favour*, will remain a cornerstone of any attempted renaissance..."


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

if he had, do you think he'd have noticed the contradiction, errors and unjustifiable assertions in it?


----------



## nightbreed (Nov 8, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> You are right. That alter pic was taken around a friend's. He's a member of Socialist Appeal.



I dont quite believe that. Socialist Appeal would have a sheeps head on the altar. The rest of the Sheep was taken by the Taaffites in the 1991/2 split. They are still feasting on it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 8, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> if he had, do you think he'd have noticed the contradiction, errors and unjustifiable assertions in it?



Belboid - please feel free to start a thread on the article where we can thrash out the above.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

can't be arsed, tbh, its a fairly minor article (which reads like it was written by someone with a stinking hangover!).  Should have read 'unjustificable assertion' - as there is only one.


----------



## Jografer (Nov 8, 2007)

> "...the strategy followed by the IWCA, that from the outset consciously departed from the aforementioned orthodoxy in order *to embrace the entire working class without fear or favour*, will remain a cornerstone of any attempted renaissance..."



That's nice of them...


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> That's nice of them...


oh, you're back.  any chance of you answering the questions you avoided before, hypocrite?


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 8, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> More recently the falling out with former comrades and the mess that all this has created has led me to search deeply within myself, to meditate in order to connect with my inner flame. This alll coincided with Samhain so I was able to seek guidance and inspiration from my ancestors. This made me feel like Autumn leaves blowing on the wind. I connected then with a grand old oak and in my dreams I saw atop this magnificant tree a purple crow. Consequently I am considering leaving Marxism and Atheism behind in order to find my true path which I am sure will be Anarchism and Witchcraft; for this is the advice I have received from the aforementioned bird. My inner being remains Surrealist. I seek guidance from the Tarot as to the future of Respect and the final card I turn over is Death. Which incidentally is an indication of great change and rupture and not demise.


Is that a serious post?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 8, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Is that a serious post?



yes


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 8, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> yes


Well if it gets him out of the SWP, it can only be a good thing, I suppose ...


----------



## Jografer (Nov 8, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> oh, you're back.  any chance of you answering the questions you avoided before, hypocrite?



Umm, what questions oh tetchy one...


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

> remind me which bookshop manager said he'd never 'sell his job' at Bt, then did exactly that on instructions from the CC?
> 
> And remind me where the SWP have condmened Hicks previously for doing so.



and while we're about it, you can have a go at:



> "In Sheffield, Tower Hamlets, Preston and many other areas across the country, Respect supporters from Muslim backgrounds have defied the stereotypes and backed the left in this dispute rather than their so-called “community leaders”."
> 
> why are there so few names of muslim origin on the swp 'petition' then? (all of 4 from sheffield! a maximum of one yemeni)
> 
> ...


----------



## Jografer (Nov 8, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> and while we're about it, you can have a go at:



Interesting, but I'm afraid you are mixing me up with some-one else..


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 8, 2007)

Who's trolling now, Jografer?

Pillock.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Interesting, but I'm afraid you are mixing me up with some-one else..


the first quote was directly to you, oh forgetful one


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 8, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Well, two cheers for Groucho for having a go.   However, that just sounds like a political justification - a discussion of events, a commentary on your opponents.  Wasn't really what i was after.  What i was interested in was *how all this made you feel *- defending people and an alliance against all attacks, pretending all the different groupings fit together without problem - then suddenly going into reverse and denouncing your former comrades.  Is there not even a little bit of you that finds it difficult?






			
				Groucho said:
			
		

> Well I don't accept entirely that we ignored the problems, what we didn't do was line up with enemies of the whole project who were denouncing from the outside.
> 
> But as to your principle question how all this made me _*feel*_:
> 
> ...




lmfao....nice one groucho


----------



## gurrier (Nov 8, 2007)

Gumbert said:
			
		

> lmfao....nice one groucho


Having feelings is, like, so petty bourgeouis.


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 8, 2007)

bless...


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 8, 2007)

blessed be


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 8, 2007)

Agree with belboid about IWCA article.


----------



## treelover (Nov 8, 2007)

Why, there is a big Defend Council Housing meeting tonight which Respect/SWP are obviously involved in, it will be interesting to see how they frame the debate.



> “Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities who suffer racism and Islamophobia” are all referenced. As are “the dispossessed, the asylum seeker, the migrant worker and to all who defend them.” Not forgotten either are “those who want to fight against discrimination, whether or the grounds of religion, gender, sexual orientation disability or age.”
> 
> Entirely absent however are the principle victims of the system they sustain; the indigenous working class majority discriminated against on the grounds of their birth and the social class they are born into. This oversight can hardly be considered to be accidental. For after all, the multicultural strategy, from which the likes of the Socialist Alliance and Respect, like to draw inspiration continues to regard the white working class majority as little more than an enemy that ought to be made to bend the knee, or better still be defeated by the lovingly name-checked and more deserving oppressed.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

how is that comment related to the article or the wider discussion? except for the fact there there is a Respect (SWP) speaker prominently on the platform.


----------



## treelover (Nov 8, 2007)

eh, DCH is a Swp front, is it not?


----------



## treelover (Nov 8, 2007)

I wonder if they will frame the debate in terms of class for a start, and when they ask their usual packed questions from the floor.

anyway, see you there?


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2007)

not exactly, they set it up and have been jolly prominent, but as you can tell from the line up of speakers at tonights meeting it is hardly a mere 'front'.

and, even if it was - that would rather contradict the exceedingly simplistic iwca article you quote

& aye, i'll see you there if someone gives me a lift -i have 15p to my name at the mo!


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 8, 2007)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Yes, at one level I'm obviously involved in the attack, in the malevolent glee about all this - but there's also part of me that wonders how this works out personally.  To carry on doing politics and sticking with a line or supporting an organisation it has to be worthwhile in terms of your self image or values - it has to 'work' in terms of who you are.  I personally ceased to be tribal in the mid 80s when i left the labour party.  Even now, in terms of anarchism, I couldn't imagine pinning my colours to a mast or having to defend a position.  My loyalties are more personal - even if the personal occassionally maps onto an event, a movement or protest.   Thats why i feel genuine bemusement as to how people can be involved in self deception over things like the Respect wars.  When the primary motivation is defending the party - not making choices and doing what you think is right, i suspect that's not too good for mental health.
> 
> E2a: that all sounds a bit worthy.    Expecting to get the reaction like the priest in the Father Ted Aiplane episode who suggests 'having an old pray'



no not worthy .. i like that a lot! very human! very proper! :-D


years and years ago knew a woman doing a post grad???? which involved interviewing loads of old stalinists and asking them emotional q's about how they felt about kruschev/hungary/czech etc .. most were simply and sadly incapable .. my fav was a brighton based weigth lifter who was certain nowt had every gone wrong east of the elbe


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 8, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> What do the IWCA mean the indigneous working class?
> 
> we should support the whole working class not just the indigenous- wherever a worker is born is irrelevant- its where s/he works now.


yes of course but you have to start with where you are at now .. jesus most people here are not in unions .. 1% vote for left parties .. etc etc .. we need to start from there not worry about people who have not even brough thei plane ticket yet


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 8, 2007)

Red Leicester said:
			
		

> Good question, UR!
> 
> Yourdictionary.com defines "indigenous" as:
> 
> ...



racialising the debate again  as did the SW with respect  

no absolutely not simply 'white' .. it refers simply to those who are here now who live next door to us .. where i live it is maj NOT white ..


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 8, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> you haven't read the whole article have you?
> 
> "...the strategy followed by the IWCA, that from the outset consciously departed from the aforementioned orthodoxy in order *to embrace the entire working class without fear or favour*, will remain a cornerstone of any attempted renaissance..."



That's slightly better but why raise the indigenous at all as a seperate category?

One way through this whole sorry mess is to rebuild the left, rebuild working class organisations form grassroots up by good organising in the communities and the workplaces- organsing amongst all sections of the working class and oppressed.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 8, 2007)

Red Leicester said:
			
		

> Good question, UR!
> 
> Yourdictionary.com defines "indigenous" as:
> 
> ...



No Red Leicester, I do not believe they mean "white".


----------



## newbie (Nov 8, 2007)

I thought it was fairly clear that _"indigenous working class majority"_ and _"white working class majority"_ were being used interchangeably in that passage.  Is that wrong?


----------



## mk12 (Nov 8, 2007)

Yes. Where did you get that impression from?


----------



## cutandsplice (Nov 8, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> yes of course but you have to start with where you are at now .. jesus most people here are not in unions .. 1% vote for left parties .. etc etc .. we need to start from there not worry about people who have not even brough thei plane ticket yet


If you read the article (BTW this isn't aimed at durrutti), you'll see the whole point of the article is how the left champion the non-white working class and ignore or abhore the white working class. Generally, the IWCA make no distinction between the white working class and non-white working class. I find it hard to believe that anyone who read the article can't understand the context. Incidentally, as a (passive) supporter of the IWCA, I was surprised they bothered to comment on respect at all, as the whole shenaigans is irrelevant to any of the working class.


----------



## newbie (Nov 8, 2007)

reading the passage

Entirely absent however are the principle victims of the system they sustain; the *indigenous working class majority* discriminated against on the grounds of their birth and the social class they are born into. This oversight can hardly be considered to be accidental. For after all, the multicultural strategy, from which the likes of the Socialist Alliance and Respect, like to draw inspiration continues to regard the *white working class majority* as little more than an enemy that ought to be made to bend the knee, or better still be defeated by the lovingly name-checked and more deserving oppressed.

how are the two majorities distinct?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 8, 2007)

newbie said:
			
		

> reading the passage
> 
> Entirely absent however are the principle victims of the system they sustain; the *indigenous working class majority* discriminated against on the grounds of their birth and the social class they are born into. This oversight can hardly be considered to be accidental. For after all, the multicultural strategy, from which the likes of the Socialist Alliance and Respect, like to draw inspiration continues to regard the *white working class majority* as little more than an enemy that ought to be made to bend the knee, or better still be defeated by the lovingly name-checked and more deserving oppressed.
> 
> how are the two majorities distinct?



One is defined by where it comes from the other by its 'colour'. Since the majority of the indigenious working class is white (that is they are the principal or first in rank by size component of that class), it would seem really counterproductive to address a number of other 'racially' defined segments of the working while ignoring this majority. Of course it would be better still not to racialise political projects in the first place, for instance by prefering instead to make an appeal which seeks to embrace the whole of the working class.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 8, 2007)

> Of course it would be better still not to racialise political projects in the first place



It depends what you mean. If you mean that class should be the basis of action then fair enough. But racism is an issue and has to be taken into account.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 8, 2007)

mutley said:
			
		

> Any chance of a longer report? It does seem odd that everyone managed to stay on the platform in the current circumstances.




Videos from the meeting.  

It's very interesting to compare Lavalette's speech with the invective in this week's Socialist Worker, also published on Tuesday night.  Hard to believe they are from the same stable really

It's also interesting to see George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob's first appearance as witch-hunters-of-the-SWP-in-chief.  I'm sure SWP members will find their actual remarks in public worth looking at compared to what they are claimed to believe in.

Reissmann:


Lavalette:

Yaqoob:

Galloway:


----------



## Groucho (Nov 8, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> blessed be



Merry meet, barney pig! Love and Light


----------



## newbie (Nov 8, 2007)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> One is defined by where it comes from the other by its 'colour'. Since the majority of the indigenious working class is white (that is they are the principal or first in rank by size component of that class), it would seem really counterproductive to address a number of other 'racially' defined segments of the working while ignoring this majority. Of course it would be better still not to racialise political projects in the first place, for instance by prefering instead to make an appeal which seeks to embrace the whole of the working class.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




Hi Louis.  I can only agree that it would be better to not appeal to people on the basis of where they were born or the colour of their skin.  It does indeed seem counterproductive, as it marginalises all those who don't neatly fit into the preferred group.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> years and years ago knew a woman doing a post grad???? which involved interviewing loads of old stalinists and asking them emotional q's about how they felt about kruschev/hungary/czech etc .. most were simply and sadly incapable .. my fav was a brighton based weigth lifter who was certain nowt had every gone wrong east of the elbe


Sounds a bit like the computers in 1970s sci-fi.  When confronted by tricky questions they first of all squawked 'does not compute' in an increasingly shrill tone - followed by smoke billowing out and a shower of sparks.

[that's me through my emotional phase. back to abuse - normal service resumed  ]


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Merry meet, barney pig! Love and Light


You been at the Wassail again?


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 9, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> blessed be



" The dogs bark but the caravan moves on" Tony Cliff.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 9, 2007)

Yes, interesting You Tube vids.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 9, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Videos from the meeting.
> 
> It's very interesting to compare Lavalette's speech with the invective in this week's Socialist Worker, also published on Tuesday night.  Hard to believe they are from the same stable really
> 
> ...


will you just explain those comments, or point me in the direction of earlier comments which will explain them?  Thanks.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 9, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> will you just explain those comments, or point me in the direction of earlier comments which will explain them?  Thanks.



Try comparing these speeches with the following comments:

"The sad truth is that Galloway is launching a campaign to wreck the left"

"It is sad that someone like George Galloway... has chosen to witch hunt an organisation of the left"

"A fight is on for Respect. The next two or three weeks will decide its outcome. It is not a fight over personalities, but over politics. Do we try to build a political home for all those who are disgusted from the left with New Labour? Or do we allow it to shrink into an organisation for promoting a few political careers – and one media career – in a couple of localities?"


----------



## Loupylou (Nov 10, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> eh, DCH is a Swp front, is it not?



At their pamphlet launch last year they had a Tory, Lib Dem, Labour, George Galloway, etc etc. (SWP would NEVER do this). That's the national campaign - a broad church.
unfortunately locally that can vary - a lot................which is why you don't see me posting about dch anymore.... to think I gave those wankers (SWP) the benefit of the doubt. It was reduced to SWP refusing to link with local Councillors against the ALMO unless Labour as their latest line is to work with Labour Cllrs (and 'try to win them over' of course ) but no-one else. In fact the Labour Cllrs were more important to them than tenants. 
but don't let that put you off - in other areas they haven't been able to ruin things and it's been a well-organised proper grass roots campaign.


----------



## Loupylou (Nov 10, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I have a spirit guide named Fat Baz don't you know


----------



## JimPage (Nov 10, 2007)

list of Loyal respect members now up to 1132. Galloway`s sycophants still  sits at 19


----------



## JimPage (Nov 10, 2007)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> If you read the article (BTW this isn't aimed at durrutti), you'll see the whole point of the article is how the left champion the non-white working class and ignore or abhore the white working class.



in that regard- they are wrong. There are however very good reasons for showing solidarity with muslims as Respect have done- for the simple reason that they are the most advanced section of the working class, while some elements the white working class are backward and reactionary- especially about basic things like open borders. 

Secondly- it is Respect- and not the IWCA- who are taking the fight to the BNP in their strongholds. It will be Respect who will be getting elected to the GLA next year - and putting a nail in the coffin of the BNP in London ( who wont get elected)


----------



## Zeppo (Nov 10, 2007)

Jim you are more intelligent than this. The appeal has lots of Respect members but omit they are SWP too plus lots of Respect supporters i.e not members.

Some notable omissions Chris Harman, Pat Stack. Let us not go over board on the appeal - let us see over the next 12 months whether Socialist Respect or Respect Renew gets better from this shambles.


----------



## PaulOK (Nov 10, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> let us see over the next 12 months whether Socialist Respect or Respect Renew gets better from this shambles.



In terms of numbers of votes and elected representatives it could well be Respect Renewal that triumphs - they with retain the big names and structural links within the Moselm communities - they can hand out the patronage and ensure the small businessmen and community leaders deliver the expected number of votes. Not that this will matter in the long run as Respect Renewal will be even more communial that the pre-split version with even more limited appeal to non-Muslims. I reckon that Official Respect (SWP) will solder on for a few years with ever diminishing returns before being ditched in favour of some new electorial vehicle.


----------



## PJW20 (Nov 10, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> some elements the white working class are backward and reactionary- especially about basic things like open borders.




You hate them don't you?


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2007)

.@jimpage


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 10, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> list of Loyal respect members now up to 1132. Galloway`s sycophants still  sits at 19



Many of the list of those signing the SWP appeal are "Respect Supporters" not members if that's where you are getting the number of 1132.  

I've yet to meet a Galloway sycophant (well at least since John Rees had his Damascan conversion sometime around August).  

If the "19" you are referring are the members of the Respect National Council who have signed the call for a Respect Renewal conference, then I think you will find that people like Jerry Hicks and Ken Loach just might object to being called 'sycophants' - they are left wing socialists with minds of their own.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2007)

Are you for real, last time i looked it wasn't the white working class who supported a religion that is some circumstances call for stoning of aldulters, the killling of apostates, etc, no wonder the unreconstructed left is fucked.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2007)

ffs.

There is no such fucking thing as the _white working class_.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 10, 2007)

Yes, more of a pink working class really


----------



## emanymton (Nov 10, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> in that regard- they are wrong. There are however very good reasons for showing solidarity with muslims as Respect have done- for the simple reason that they are the most advanced section of the working class, while



I’m generally a supporter of the SWP on these issues but take real exception to this statement.

Working class Muslims are currently the most oppressed section of the British working class and that is why they deserve our support.

I see no evidence that they are politically more ‘advanced’ than the non-Muslim working class (which is of course far from all white) expect possibly on the issue of war and imperialism. I’m not sure how truly deep this understanding goes to be honest. I think many see the currant situation as a war on Islam, which it isn’t; it just happens that the courtiers America needs to blow up at the moment are Islamic. 
If America was to turn from threatening Iran to threatening Venezuela would the anti-war movement have the same level of Muslim support? I think not no doubt many have generalised from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but many will not have, or will be considerable less passionate. And of course imperialism is not the sole measure of how ‘advanced’ people are. Is trade union membership higher amongst the Muslim working class? Do they on average vote for strikes more often? I honestly have no idea but I suspect that on these issues they are not significantly different from the majority of the working class.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 10, 2007)

> Working class Muslims are currently the most oppressed section of the British working class and that is why they deserve our support.



Why do you say that?

jim:


> some elements the white working class are backward and reactionary- especially about basic things like open borders.



Christ. So all those opposed to the idea of open borders are backwards and reactionary? Jesus.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 10, 2007)

First, would you considering splitting you post the current layout (without references) gives the impression that both quotations are from me.

Secondly why do I think Muslims are they most oppressed or why do I think the need our support?
I would have thought the answer to both was obvious but I’ll try to explain in a minute


----------



## mk12 (Nov 10, 2007)

Why do you see them as the "most oppressed"? If there even was a hierarchy of oppression.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 10, 2007)

Well I admit a hierarchy of oppression does seem odd there is a reality to it.
At the most elementary level.
Black people are victims of Racism, yes?
And Women are victims of sexism, yes?
Meaning that black women suffer a double oppression and are therefore more oppressed than black men, correct?

Anyway, currently because of the war on terror, Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of state oppression, wouldn’t you agree? It is overwhelming Muslims who have there homes raided by 100’s of police, usually with no charges being made. It is Muslims being impassioned for years for committing thought crime while BNP supports amassing stockpiles of explosives are let of lightly.

It is Muslims who are not the principle targets of racists and the BNP

Do I really need to explain all this to you; you used to be in the SWP FFS


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 10, 2007)

> in that regard- they are wrong. There are however very good reasons for showing solidarity with muslims as Respect have done- for the simple reason that they are the most advanced section of the working class, while some elements the white working class are backward and reactionary- especially about basic things like open borders.
> 
> Secondly- it is Respect- and not the IWCA- who are taking the fight to the BNP in their strongholds. It will be Respect who will be getting elected to the GLA next year - and putting a nail in the coffin of the BNP in London ( who wont get elected)



What a terrible post.

As people have said there is an argument that the muslim community is currently the most oppressed section of society. But that doesn’t make them “the most advanced section of the working class”. What do you mean by this? As people have said the war in Iraq and War on Terrorism might make muslim communities more likely to be anti-imperialist but even there, as emanymton points out, this is often on the basis of religious solidarity rather than class based anti-imperialism.

And are you seriously saying that there aren’t sections of the muslim community that have reactionary views?

As for your hopes for what is going to happen with the SWP RESPECT I think you’re wildly optimistic.

However what do the IWCA mean by the indigenous working class? Because their article seems to counterpose the indigenous working class with RESPECTs base of support.



> Are you for real, last time i looked it wasn't the white working class who supported a religion that is some circumstances call for stoning of aldulters, the killling of apostates, etc, no wonder the unreconstructed left is fucked.



And this post is equally a crock of shit. Are you seriously saying that the anything but a tiny minority of muslims in the UK support the above?

Also you do get white and black people who are Christian fundamentalists, again though, a tiny minority.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 10, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Well I admit a hierarchy of oppression does seem odd there is a reality to it.
> At the most elementary level.
> Black people are victims of Racism, yes?
> And Women are victims of sexism, yes?
> ...



Have you read the Islamophobia Myth by Kenan Malik? I remember when I was in the SWP and talking with people about Islamophobia, and I always used to bring out the "300% increase in muslims being stopped and searched" fact. I think Malik's research has helped to disprove this somewhat.  

_"As it happens, there is evidence that stop and search is used in a racist way. But the victims are not Asian. They’re black. Blacks form 3 per cent of the population – but 14 per cent of those stopped and searched. You’re five times more likely to be stopped and searched if you’re black than if you’re Asian - not that you’d know from all the hoo-hah about Islamophobia. One of the consequences of the exaggeration of anti-Muslim prejudice is to hide the real discrimination."_

_"A total of 21,577 had been stopped and searched under the terror laws. The vast majority of these - 14,429 - were in fact white. Yet when I interviewed Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britainhe insisted that '95-98 per cent of those stopped and searched under the anti-terror laws are Muslim'. The real figure is actually 15 per cent. But however many times I showed him the true statistics he refused to budge. I am sure he was sincere in his belief. But there is no basis for his claim that virtually all those stopped and searched were Muslim - the figures appear to have been simply plucked out of the sky"_
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html

Looks like you should put black people at the top of your oppression table.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 11, 2007)

mk12 you're right that any "oppression table" is a waste of time in many ways. But whatever statistics you provide it seems stating the total obvious that muslims are public enemy No.1. Are you seriously gonna deny this? People banged up for 6 years for waving a placard while someone else hoarding the biggest ever stock of bomb materials gets a minimal sentence and is described as an "honest bloke" by the police.

Day in, day out, muslims are demonised by the media. And the BNP know it.

If you really think that muslims aren't currently the prime target then not sure what planet you're living on.



> A total of 21,577 had been stopped and searched under the terror laws. The vast majority of these - 14,429 - were in fact white.



This is a load of bollox. That means that 33% of people stopped under terror laws weren't white. Yet non-white people make up only 9% of the population.



> Yet when I interviewed Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britainhe insisted that '95-98 per cent of those stopped and searched under the anti-terror laws are Muslim'. The real figure is actually 15 per cent.



So 15% of people stopped were muslim, yet muslims make up about 2% of th population.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 11, 2007)

Fisher_Gate[I said:
			
		

> ]I've yet to meet a Galloway sycophant (well at least since John Rees had his Damascan conversion sometime around August).
> 
> If the "19" you are referring are the members of the Respect National Council who have signed the call for a Respect Renewal conference, then I think you will find that people like Jerry Hicks and Ken Loach just might object to being called 'sycophants' - they are left wing socialists with minds of their own.


[/I]

Probably unfair to call sycophants as I dont know the peopel concerned.

Then why on earth are they supporting Galloway over the socialists in Respect then? The SWP, love em or hate em, were and are the backbone of Respect- and Galloway proposed , in effect, to eject them from Respect. It should be remembered who started this arguement in the first place- Galloway.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 11, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> What a terrible post.
> 
> As people have said there is an argument that the muslim community is currently the most oppressed section of society. But that doesn’t make them “the most advanced section of the working class”. What do you mean by this? As people have said the war in Iraq and War on Terrorism might make muslim communities more likely to be anti-imperialist but even there, as emanymton points out, this is often on the basis of religious solidarity rather than class based anti-imperialism.
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 11, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> I’m generally a supporter of the SWP on these issues but take real exception to this statement.
> 
> Working class Muslims are currently the most oppressed section of the British working class and that is why they deserve our support.
> 
> ...





"Working class Muslims are currently the most oppressed section of the British working class and that is why they deserve our support."

what total and utter liberal drivel .. no wonder the left has no support amongst 99% of the w/c


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 11, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Well I admit a hierarchy of oppression does seem odd there is a reality to it.
> At the most elementary level.
> Black people are victims of Racism, yes?
> And Women are victims of sexism, yes?
> ...



oh my go! what rubbish??? thuis from a socialist??? FFS 99& of muslims are NOT being raided .. they have MORE freedom to be muslim than in most countries ( and better than in factionalised muslim countries) .. they have freedom of speech .. what ever happenned to class in the SWP???? 

p.s. try visting merthyr / easterhouse / middlesboro etc etc and tell us agin that muslim are the most oppressed .. where they are it is from their class and how they have been used in the north NOT 'cos we hates muslims' 

p.s. you aware that people proclaiming themselves as fighting on behalf of islam blew up a tube train and a bus in london the other year?? you think the state should turn a blind eye to that? sure we all agree the state is partialy to blame but this targetting has a reason


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 11, 2007)

> Then why on earth are they supporting Galloway over the socialists in Respect then? The SWP, love em or hate em, were and are the backbone of Respect- and Galloway proposed , in effect, to eject them from Respect. It should be remembered who started this arguement in the first place- Galloway.



This is the problem though. The SWP have used an opportunistic and tailist method since day one in RESPECT and now it has blown up in their face. It wasn't so long they were giving old GG adoring looks and standing ovations. Now it has all gone wrong they suddenly discover a turn to the class. Sorry but it's more total opportunism. I've got no time for Galloway, and think that his split is to the right. That doens't make the SWP right or mean that they should be supported.



> I think you can take how Muslim workers vote to be a good indicator of their politics- namely Respect- in increasing numbers. I dont think that when, for once, the left have a genuine popular base- that it is a good idea to alienate this base



But on what basis was RESPECT getting votes? Galloway has openly boasted that his religous and anti-abortion votes got him votes. Also while RESPECT was seen an an anti-war party, as has been said above what are the reasons that underpin the anti-war feeling? I'd say it's more religious in character than class based and RESPECT did nothing to cut against that.

Of course we should build solidarity with all working class communities, including the muslim community. But if voting RESPECT is your basis for saying who is advanced or not, I'd have to disagree.



> oh my go! what rubbish??? thuis from a socialist??? FFS 99& of muslims are NOT being raided .. they have MORE freedom to be muslim than in most countries ( and better than in factionalised muslim countries) .. they have freedom of speech .. what ever happenned to class in the SWP????
> 
> p.s. try visting merthyr / easterhouse / middlesboro etc etc and tell us agin that muslim are the most oppressed .. where they are it is from their class and how they have been used in the north NOT 'cos we hates muslims'
> 
> p.s. you aware that people proclaiming themselves as fighting on behalf of islam blew up a tube train and a bus in london the other year?? you think the state should turn a blind eye to that? sure we all agree the state is partialy to blame but this targetting has a reason



Durutti what is your last paragraph for? Has anyone said that people should be allowed to bomb people? But we are talking about tiny, tiny amount of people. 99% of muslims would not support bombing innocent civilians.

Of course class should be the basis of our politics, but you can't deny that other oppressions exist such as racism, sexism etc All working class people suffer exploitation but there are added oppressions for some sections of society. Are you seriously gonna deny that muslims aren't under the cosh at the moment? Virtually day there are more anti-muslim stories in the press and Islamophobia has clearly increased. Even just by comments in everyday life I can't believe that you haven't noticed it. I know where I work there have been anti-muslim emails sent around, that people I worked with argued their shouldn't be more muslim schools because they don't want people trained as bombers etc and I can't believe that my experience is an exception.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 11, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> But whatever statistics you provide it seems stating the total obvious that muslims are public enemy No.1. .



So why are black people more likely to be stopped and searched by police?


----------



## mk12 (Nov 11, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> cockneyrebel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 11, 2007)

Can you edit your post mk12 as it looks like it's me who has sad that voting for RESPECT makes them an "advanced worker".......



> So why are black people more likely to be stopped and searched by police?



Because of the inherent racism in the police force which has gone back decades in terms of stop and search for black people.

I'm not gonna debate this anymore. But if you seriously think that muslims aren't public enemy No.1 at the moment I think you're living on another planet.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 12, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> Probably unfair to call sycophants as I dont know the peopel concerned.
> 
> Then why on earth are they supporting Galloway over the socialists in Respect then? The SWP, love em or hate em, were and are the backbone of Respect- and Galloway proposed , in effect, to eject them from Respect. It should be remembered who started this arguement in the first place- Galloway.



The claim that Galloway wanted to "eject the SWP" is a fiction and lie made up by by an increasingly bizarre SWP CC.

Listen carefully to Galloway's speech at the North Manchester Respect meeting last tuesday.  

http://www.respectnorthwest.org/2006/respect061107.htm

Where does he say he does not want the SWP?  

And if it is true that Galloway wants them out, why did Michael Lavalette - leading SWP member in Respect - not criticise him for this from the platform of the same meeting?  Instead Lavalette praises Galloway (and Yaquoob's) role in Respect.

Are Jerry Hicks, Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoveman no longer socialists by the way?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

Faux argument; the SWPs position is not that Galloway _openly_ wants the SWP out of Respect.

Just generally poor quality <ed: removed>


----------



## Jean-Luc (Nov 12, 2007)

I got a leaflet the other day for an SWP meeting on "Sexism and the System" to be held in a pub. Is this a sign that the SWP has abandoned its policy of not meeting in pubs? A sign that they are abandoning their "turn to Islam". Meeting in a pub and discussing sex. That should put the imams off!


----------



## selamlar (Nov 12, 2007)

> Have you read the Islamophobia Myth by Kenan Malik?



The day I trust anything written by a member of RCP/LM etc etc.

Barbed wire on the wrong side of the posts, eh.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Faux argument; the SWPs position is not that Galloway _openly_ wants the SWP out of Respect.
> 
> Just generally poor quality ***.



Have you just posted someone real name?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

It was an abbreviation... but I didn't realise you weren't allowed to anyway.

My bad.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 12, 2007)

> But if you seriously think that muslims aren't public enemy No.1 at the moment I think you're living on another planet.



Public enemy no. 1 int he media is different to "most oppressed group in society" though.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Faux argument; the SWPs position is not that Galloway _openly_ wants the SWP out of Respect.
> 
> Just generally poor quality <ed: removed>



And Lavalette is not _openly_ prepared to say what the SWP thinks of Galloway?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

My guess would be that muslims aren't just public enemy No.1 in the media but probably the most disliked group of people in society generally at the moment i.e. there are probably more negative and prejudiced attitudes towards muslims from the general population than towards any other group of people. The reason I think this is both personal experiences and general comments you see on the internet, in papers and on the TV. After 
a while constant negative comments and scapegoating is gonna have a wider affect.

As for "most oppressed group", I'd agree with you that some kind of league table isn't desirable or possible. But out of any group in society I'd probably feel the most unwelcome and ostracised if I was a working class muslim, in the present circumstances.

As said, class should be the basis of our politics, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the very real problems of racism and muslim bashing that goes on day in day out.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 12, 2007)

No one is ignoring that, just some people are trying to point out it has been exaggerated by some people for various reasons.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> And Lavalette is not _openly_ prepared to say what the SWP thinks of Galloway?



Lavalette will say what he personally, as an SWP member, thinks of Galloway openly. He's said so himself and I think he's quite right, that there is nothing gained from encouraging either side to carry on ripping pieces out of one another.

Lavalette would also argue that it was infact the SWPs position he is arguing; that the SWP wants Galloway back under the old banner of Respect, etc etc.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

It might have been exaggerated by some, not sure. But to be honest the massive rise in Islamophobia is of far more importance than the people who are exaggerating it.

There might have been groups in the 1960 and 70s who exaggerated racism towards black and Asian people. But that is hardly of that much importance compared to the very real racism that was happening and is happening now.

Whether it's responded to in a real class based way or with liberal multiculturalism obviously is important.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

> Lavalette would also argue that it was infact the SWPs position he is arguing; that the SWP wants Galloway back under the old banner of Respect, etc etc.



 

You're seriously suggesting that the SWP want Galloway back in RESPECT?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Lavalette will say what he personally, as an SWP member, thinks of Galloway openly. He's said so himself and I think he's quite right, that there is nothing gained from encouraging either side to carry on ripping pieces out of one another.
> 
> Lavalette would also argue that it was infact the SWPs position he is arguing; that the SWP wants Galloway back under the old banner of Respect, etc etc.



Would he? What makes you think this. The SWP wouldn't anyway. That's bollocks.

All the SWP people are floundering with no clear lead at the minute (and no experice of think for themselves). Harry Pollitt in 1939 all over. See above.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

No; I'm _STATING_ Lavalette's position. I think that in reality there are alot of bigwigs who are pretty happy about his leaving - but that is an obviously untenable position and in many cases is borne out of personal prejudice than tactical or political reasoning.

The SWP all the way through were denouncing the idea of the split, publically.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Yes, but what you're stating as the SWP position is patently untrue. 

Where are you all?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

All that I've stated as the SWPs position is that it was opposed to the split.


----------



## laptop (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> All that I've stated as the SWPs position is that it was opposed to the split.



So the meetings to arrange the split have been dis-happened?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> All that I've stated as the SWPs position is that it was opposed to the split.



And that the SWP would love to keep GG in. 

"that the SWP wants Galloway back under the old banner of Respect"

This was literally half an hour ago. Pollit disease getting worse. Spreading.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

Wow - congratulations on Spin, Spinmeister! What I _actually_ said;



> *Lavalette would also argue* that it was infact the SWPs position he is arguing; that the SWP wants Galloway back under the old banner of Respect, etc etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Fuck me, that says, the SWP position as argued by Lavalette is...i mean it's there in black an white, it's there TWICE in the quote 

Is there now a Lavalette/SWp split?

Floundering.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 12, 2007)

You certainly are! As I've already stated consistently, all the way through the SWP has always publically argued against the split - thus making a claim that the SWP _is_ opposed to the split justifiable.

It's really quite simple! And Lavalette happens to agree.


----------



## chilango (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You certainly are! As I've already stated consistently, all the way through the SWP has always publically argued against the split - thus making a claim that the SWP _is_ opposed to the split justifiable.
> 
> It's really quite simple! And Lavalette happens to agree.



...yet the SWP leadership have attended meetings to *arrange* the split. Hmmm.


----------



## laptop (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> publically argued



I note that the qualification keeps reappearing.

So. The *public* line has been against. 

But the real line is: _______________


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You certainly are! As I've already stated consistently, all the way through the SWP has always publically argued against the split - thus making a claim that the SWP _is_ opposed to the split justifiable.
> 
> It's really quite simple! And Lavalette happens to agree.




No, the SWP do not argue:

"that the SWP wants Galloway back under the old banner of Respect"

Have you even been keeping up with this? It's amazing that 

a) how little you're told 
or 
b) how far you're prepared to pretend that that things aren't what they are.

It's no longer astounding, it's demoralising though. It's just shit.


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 12, 2007)

Lavalette said it was an honour to be on the same platform as Galloway.

The SWP say, "On the right are those who would subordinate or blunt the radical elements of Respect and confine it to being an electoral machine that supports a few big names in a few localities. This side includes George Galloway and his followers."

and "In fact people are disgusted that while we’ve been fighting around real issues such as council housing, Galloway’s supporters have been busy wrecking Respect. "

No mention that actually the SWP set it up as a loose coalition, with socialist politics deliberatley diluted, with a lack of grassroots organisation etc. etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Pollitisis it's called.

And people like hooverbag ain't been trained.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

Uberdog you have clearly stated that the SWP position, via Lavalette, is that they'd like Galloway back in RESPECT.

Are you seriously suggesting this is the case? That the SWP would want to work with Galloway again in RESPECT?


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 12, 2007)

Here's an interesting article from the PR group
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1779

The recent Respect disaster does mean that in my opinion socialists should attempt to learn the lessons.

There are no pat answers but nor are there quick fix solutions- get rich quick scehmes in politics as in economics are pretty elusive and we shouldn't trust those who peddle them


----------



## mk12 (Nov 12, 2007)

> Whether it's responded to in a real class based way or with liberal multiculturalism obviously is important.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

As it goes that has always been WPs and PRs position.

There is an anti-racist pamphlet produced by WP about 10 years ago (which both WP and PR have updated since I believe) that has a whole section slaming the dead end politics of liberal multiculturalism.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

Indeed it's here:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=382



> In periods of capitalist prosperity multiculturalism is, at best, an inadequate programme of reforms. In periods of crisis and recession it is reduced to sheer utopianism, and even to concealing the extent and nature of racial discrimination and prejudice in society.
> 
> Above all, it is a strategy to be carried out from above, by politicians in parliament and the council chamber, by media professionals and educationalists.
> 
> ...


----------



## mk12 (Nov 12, 2007)

Another thread I think.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Another thread I think.



What!  Another boring thread on multi-culturalism ffs.  

It's not as though this has been 'debated' upteem times already?

Maybe have a poll?

Do you prefer an immigation thread, or a multi-cultural one?  

.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2007)

Can PR stop spamming please?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2007)

Why not urbanrevolt too in that case?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

> Can PR stop spamming please?



Don't think it's spamming (a handful of links), but fair enough.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 12, 2007)

To be fair CR, "Here's an interesting article from the PR group" is an awful plug


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 12, 2007)

:d


----------



## newbie (Nov 12, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> To be fair CR, "Here's an interesting article from the PR group" is an awful plug




not much more awful than




			
				mk12 said:
			
		

> http://www.iwca.info/cgi-bin/iwcanews.pl?record=28
> 
> IWCA angle on it.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 13, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Uberdog you have clearly stated that the SWP position, via Lavalette, is that they'd like Galloway back in RESPECT.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting this is the case? That the SWP would want to work with Galloway again in RESPECT?



If you read what I've written already - and don't simply try to contend a point without a point of contention, as butchers is so fabulously doing - then you'll find that I've also explained what I think the SWPs attitude towards having Galloway back in the Party. And yes! As the astute of you have noticed it was _not_ the same as the publically argued SWP line!

Wowzers BoWzErZ!!?!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 13, 2007)

eg




			
				Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> No; I'm _STATING_ Lavalette's position. I think that in reality there are alot of bigwigs who are pretty happy about his leaving - but that is an obviously untenable position and in many cases is borne out of personal prejudice than tactical or political reasoning.
> 
> The SWP all the way through were denouncing the idea of the split, publically.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 13, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> To be fair CR, "Here's an interesting article from the PR group" is an awful plug



I don't think it's spamming - and it was an interesting article highly relevant to the thread.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 13, 2007)

For those of us on the sidelines, any chance of a recap on all this?

Is Respect Renewal a genuine split that will continue to operate under such a name?
Is Respect now just left with SWPies?
Is there a showdown for whose party it is, still to come, post conference?


----------



## newbie (Nov 13, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't think it's spamming - and it was an interesting article highly relevant to the thread.



I thought it was unreadable tosh, but certainly relevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Don't think it's spamming (a handful of links), but fair enough.



I was only joshing after you and the others being told to cut it out onthe SUN site as well.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 13, 2007)

The Socialist Unity site. Could you have any more of an ironic title.

The threats of banning on there make me laugh. Whether you think the PR posts are a load of rubbish politically or the best critque since the start of history (I know you'd probably opt for the second  ), they're not insulting. All above and below the PR posts are people laying into each other in personal terms and then the editor says he's gonna ban PR posts.....


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 13, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The Socialist Unity site. Could you have any more of an ironic title.
> 
> The threats of banning on there make me laugh. Whether you think the PR posts are a load of rubbish politically or the best critque since the start of history (I know you'd probably opt for the second  ), they're not insulting. All above and below the PR posts are people laying into each other in personal terms and then the editor says he's gonna ban PR posts.....



The problem with PR is that they are not in favour of any organisational form to broad-based socialist unity - they just want a revolutionary party on a full revolutionary programme.  It's a well put and perfectly reasonable (though wrong) point of view but the posts are essentially all the same ...  ultimately boiling down to "Respect was bound to fail because it was not a revolutionary party on a full revolutionary programme" type of argument ... that's not debating, it's just repeating the same mantra robo-style.  

Make the point once off and then go off and debate among those people who agree with it - but be prepared to be very lonely though  .  Leave the SU site to those who do want to organise broad-based socialist unity whether you are a revolutionary or reformist or don't know/care.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 13, 2007)

newbie said:
			
		

> not much more awful than


----------



## Red Leicester (Nov 13, 2007)

Respect's Electoral Commission entry appears to have been "updated":

Party officers:  	
Leader:	Ms Linda Smith
Nominating Officer:	Ms Linda Smith
Treasurer:	Ms Elaine Graham-Leigh


Party description(s):  	
Respect	
Respect (George Galloway)	
Respect - Homes For All	
Respect - Peace, Justice, Equality	
Respect - People Not Profit	
Respect - Save The NHS


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2007)

That's what it said before i think.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 13, 2007)

> The problem with PR is that they are not in favour of any organisational form to broad-based socialist unity - they just want a revolutionary party on a full revolutionary programme. It's a well put and perfectly reasonable (though wrong) point of view but the posts are essentially all the same ... ultimately boiling down to "Respect was bound to fail because it was not a revolutionary party on a full revolutionary programme" type of argument ... that's not debating, it's just repeating the same mantra robo-style.
> 
> Make the point once off and then go off and debate among those people who agree with it - but be prepared to be very lonely though  . Leave the SU site to those who do want to organise broad-based socialist unity whether you are a revolutionary or reformist or don't know/care.



It depends what you mean by "any organisational form to broad-based socialist unity". As it goes PR thinks that it's vital that united fronts be built up and the rank and file of the unions be rebuilt as well. That means much more than trying to build a revolutionary party/organisation.

I still haven't seen any evidence, ever, of a social democratic party leading to a revolutionary organisation and/or fundamental change of society.

As for the SU site it seems to be people slagging each other off most of the time. As both sides essentially have the same politics then I suppose that's all that's left.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2007)

Can't say I've been keeping up with this over the last couple of weeks, but it looks to me like the Gallowayites have made some strategic mistakes.  Even if they didn't have the numbers, it was a mistake to abandon the organisation before the conference.  Losing control of the website was a mistake - thier new one looks pretty weak - and isn't a place that 'neutrals' (if there is such a thing in this spat) would find thier way to to get information.  Leaves the swp controlling all the levers.  Galloway himself should have sought to make a barnstorming 'big man' speech, lamenting the splits and the like - even if only as a strategy to leave Respect with more of the members and assets.  Should have played the victim role and at least tried dealing the 'unity/it isn't too late to step back' card.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I still haven't seen any evidence, ever, of a social democratic party leading to a revolutionary organisation



Are you serious?

Almost every single mass revolutionary party in history came out of a crisis in a mass social democratic party. Even the Bolsheviks themselves came out of a split in a broad party containing both revolutionary and reformist workers.

By contrast the success rate of attempts building mass revolutionary parties from scratch approaches zero. This is a core problem with the PR/WP/Spartoid model - mass parties aren't fucking built like that and they never have been.


----------



## fanciful (Nov 13, 2007)

Well judging by the tone of discussion used on the SU site by "all the people who want a broad party", it'd be a funny sort of party, a pre-condition for entry would appear to be a pleasure in spitting at all an sundry. Enjoy.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 13, 2007)

> Almost every single mass revolutionary party in history came out of a crisis in a mass social democratic party. Even the Bolsheviks themselves came out of a split in a broad party containing both revolutionary and reformist workers.
> 
> By contrast the success rate of attempts building mass revolutionary parties from scratch approaches zero. This is a core problem with the PR/WP/Spartoid model - mass parties aren't fucking built like that and they never have been.



I don't think you're right Nigel (although my post was phrased badly). Revolutionary organisations might have come out of mass social democratic parties, but that, in my view, was despite the politics of social democracy, not because of it. And in those times, when class struggle was very high, that's possible.

That's very different from the SP/SWP model of a tiny revolutionary propaganda group building a reformist group like RESPECT or the CNWP and then at some point in future building a revolutionary party out of it, as you put it - mass parties aren't fucking built like that and they never have been.

And no I don't think you can just build a revolutionary party from scratch, and I've never said that.

By the way you'd love the Socialist Unity site, they all debate like you


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I don't think you're right Nigel (although my post was phrased badly). Revolutionary organisations might have come out of mass social democratic parties, but that, in my view, was despite the politics of social democracy, not because of it.



Cr, I'm not much bothered if you think I'm right. The historical record is that close to 100% of mass revolutionary parties came out of splits in mass reformist parties or mass parties containing both reformists and revolutionaries. That was the origin of almost every mass affiliate to the Communist International in its revolutionary period. 

Where parties joined which did not come out of a crisis in a mass social democratic party - as in Britain and the USA - and were instead the result of the growth and fusion of small revolutionary groups, they did not become mass parties.

When people argue that the route to a revolutionary party is likely to be through a mass workers party, they have the weight of history on their side. They can point to pretty much every revolutionary party which has ever existed as their evidence. When you argue that the way to a revolutionary party is to concentrate on building a small revolutionary group, you have only Spartoid dogma on your side.

Now you will probably tell me that I'm misrepresenting your argument. Please then, let me preempt you. How do PR think that a mass revolutionary party will be built, given that they oppose Trotsky's Labor Party tactic.


----------



## fanciful (Nov 13, 2007)

But as a pre-condition for it, they do actually have to argue revolutionary politics. Something that the SP conspicuously avoid.
Actually PR completely agree with Trotsky's Labor Party tactic. It's you who appear not to know what it is. Trotsky posed the idea of the unions forming a mass party in the late 1930s after a series of sit down strikes involving millions of workers and with a world war looming - but even then he argued that while the programme of the party wasn't decided in advance, the Trotskyists should fight for a revolutionary platform.
So two questions 1) In what sense is the world today like 1938. 2) when do the SP ever argue for a revolutionary platform.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

Well fanciful, given that the PR/Spart/WP version of "revolutionary politics" is to mouth phrases appropriate to 1938, regardless of the situation on the ground, your question strikes me as somewhat ironic. You geniuses are after all the people who think that demands for Workers Militias and the like are appropriate at the moment, not us. The Socialist Party argues for revolutionary politics in everything we do - your problem is simply that you don't know what a revolutionary programme actually is.

One thing which Britain in 2007 and the USA in 1938 really does have in common is the absence of any type of mass workers party. Addressing this situation is actually relevant today, unlike most of the baggage from 1938 which PR's thirty members want to haul about.

I note that you do not address the core of my point to CR at all: Mass revolutionary parties come out of broader or reformist mass workers parties. PR offer plenty of r-r-revolutionary carping from the sidelines but offer no alternative path.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

*what the SUN website won't tell you....*

Three attackers kicked Councillor Oli Rahman to the ground, inflicting internal bruising and ripping his clothes, in an incident?near his home in Tower Hamlets last night (Sunday 11 November).

This is the second attack on Oli. In the first incident his front window was shattered in the middle of the night when attackers threw a brick through it. Oli's mother has also been threatened.

Last night's attack follows threatening?emails sent?to both Oli Rahman and fellow Respect National Council member Mehdi Hassan. 

In a separate incident Mehdi Hassan received the following email threatening both him and Oli Rahman.

-----Original message-----
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:16:02 +0000To: mehdi@respectcoalition.orgSubject: (no subject) "medi you and fucking oli are traitors you owe your careers to george,  without george you will all be signing on soon and if i see the pair of you im 
gonna kick the shit out of you both." 

These incidents have all been reported to the police.Oli Rahman said: 'I will not be intimidated. I will not be bullied. I will not be threatened. I'm confident that the vast majority of Respect members will support me and condemn these disgusting, cowardly assaults.'


A packed meeting of Tower Hamlets Respect addressed by Councillors Rania Khan, Oli Rahman and Mayoral candidate Lindsey German on Monday 12 November saw a rebirth of the party in the borough.

Unlike any Respect meeting in the area for months the meeting was properly organised. Chaired by Kumar Murshid, there was a lively debate about?the way forward was held in a fraternal and organised manner.

Over 80 people attended the meeting at the eastern end of the borough despite emails which circulated ahead of the meeting falsely claiming it had been cancelled. The meeting is?one of a series planned to rebuild?Respect according to its original vision as a radical, left-wing project. Over half the meeting were Bengalis many of whom said how excluded they felt from the regime recently controlling Respect in the area.

There was great solidarity for Oli Rahman speaking for the first time since he was attacked near his home at the weekend.

The meeting cheered every speaker that talked about this weekend's Respect Conference as the proper place to debate and discuss the way forward for Respect.

Oh and btw - those of you making the most of the fact that michael lavalette didn't launch into an attack on galloway at the meeting in Manchester seem to have missed the point that he was the only speaker that mentioned the split. It is ironic that Galloway would speak on a platform against witch hunting Karen Reissman out of the NHS - but he would be more than happy to drive her out of respect


----------



## fanciful (Nov 13, 2007)

Lol.
Who is it that believes world capitalism's collapsing? Not us. If you were honest you'd say the similarity between 2007 and 1938 is that in both cases the world faces a terminal economic crisis. I take it you do read Socialism Today, here's a quote from the October issue;
“In the next few years, the unfolding of economic crises will shatter the idea that capitalism is a ‘successful’ system, the only way of organising the economy and society.”

If you were serious about your perspectives, then the question would be why don't you argue not only for the necessity of workers militias in given situations, but for the foundation of one now. Of course I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that perspective was "genius", but it does have a certain flourish.
And of course the baggage of the 1930s that you want to ditch, is not the very amusing attempt to compare today to then, but the revolutionary programme and everything that goes with it. So as for that being r-r-r revolutionary. Guilty.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> what the sun website wont tell


liammacuaid - another supporter of repect renewal - will. along with a condemnation of the attack. the rest of RR should do likewise, but you cant pretend that they pretend it never happened.



> It is ironic that Galloway would speak on a platform against witch hunting Karen Reissman out of the NHS - but he would be more than happy to drive her out of respect


except there is no evidence whatsoever there was ever any attempt to drive her out of respect.  tho there is now a document showing the swp were negotiating a polite divorce, whilst telling their members (who then told everyone else in the strongest possible terms) that they were doing no such thing.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

fanciful said:
			
		

> Lol.
> Who is it that believes world capitalism's collapsing? Not us.



Not the Socialist Party either, as you are well aware. The rest of your post veers from your habitual dishonesty into incoherence. And once more you don't engage at all with the central point I made to Cr. Funny that.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Three attackers kicked Councillor Oli Rahman to the ground, inflicting internal bruising and ripping his clothes, in an incident?near his home in Tower Hamlets last night (Sunday 11 November).


#

interestingly, the SUN website, alongside not reporting on this development are censoring any debate as to whether the state is heavily involved in the split- and in particular responsible for the assault. It is obvious that the state would choose now to use use its agents in the left to wind things up  (fromn both sides) - and that includes the use of violence- which will get blamed on Galloways faction. Not saying it wasnt galloways mob- but not saying it was.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> there is now a document showing the swp were negotiating a polite divorce, whilst telling their members (who then told everyone else in the strongest possible terms) that they were doing no such thing.



What will the SWP supporters say now? Their options would appear to be:

1) Claim that it is all a lie, that Thornett, Yaqoob, Smith and Wrack are just making all this stuff up. Although it seems pretty unlikely that they would make up all that detail, they seem very confident that the independent talks chair will confirm their account and the SWP do admit that some kind of negotiations went on.

2) Accept that their leadership lied to them, accepting behind the scenes that Respect was splitting while they were vigorously denying that they had accepted any such thing, shrug and accept that their CC has the right to hold a series of meetings and baldly lie to the membership to them.

3) Accept that their leadership has lied to them... and draw more appropriate conclusions from that fact.

Well Groucho, Das Uberdog, Cliffite, nwnm, etc, what's it to be?


----------



## fanciful (Nov 13, 2007)

Yes fair point your writings are so incoherent as to be meaningless. Try this gem from September;
"Whether a recession in the US economy comes now or a bit later, and whether it is sharp or more gradual, could however depend on events in the finance markets over coming weeks."

As for not engaging with your point, what is your point? You think the world's like 1938, but then again maybe not. You think we should be revolutionary, but not in public. You think this, you think that. It's all great and you're always right.
Or on reflection perhaps that is your point?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> interestingly, the SUN website, alongside not reporting on this development are censoring any debate as to whether the state is heavily involved in the split- and in particular responsible for the assault.



The SUN site has carried a large number of comments on this incident, without deleting them. It does have a policy of deleting speculation about "state agents" and the like, because such allegations cannot be proven and inevitably lead only to further rows.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 13, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Listen carefully to Galloway's speech at the North Manchester Respect meeting last tuesday.



i think you are confusing comments made for public consumption with what he has been doing behind the scenes agaisnt the SWP. As to Wrack, Hoveman etc- it is just sad they got taken in by Galloway. I also think they were opportunistic and chose the wrong winning side.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

the wrong winning side?  there's more than one then??!!

and you still have not provided an ioa of actual evidence that Galloway et al were trying to explicitly _expel_ SWP members


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

Apparently the new SWP preconference bulletin has oppositional articles by Holborrow, Waterson and Mark Steel amongst others.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What will the SWP supporters say now? Their options would appear to be:
> 
> 1) Claim that it is all a lie, that Thornett, Yaqoob, Smith and Wrack are just making all this stuff up. Although it seems pretty unlikely that they would make up all that detail, they seem very confident that the independent talks chair will confirm their account and the SWP do admit that some kind of negotiations went on.
> 
> ...



I'll go for option 1.....and wait for a big fat cigar smoker to issue me with a writ


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

you'll go for one, even tho there is documentary evidence to show it's actually you & yours lying?


one could almost admire the chutzpah


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> I'll go for option 1.....and wait for a big fat cigar smoker to issue me with a writ



And if Murray confirms what they say?

You do accept that the two meetings referred to did take place between the groups mentioned? What do you think was being discussed at those meetings?


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2007)

Surely this is the beginning of the end for the SWP?

McFarlane, Waterson, Ger Francis et al. uberHacks leaving or dissenting?

Their entire periphery now alienated.

Their collapsed membership numbers now public.

The only question now is will it a WRP style end or an IMG style end?


----------



## laptop (Nov 13, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> The only question now is will it a WRP style end or an IMG style end?



I'm expecting - and worrying about - an RCP-style end.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> And if Murray confirms what they say?



There are many things that could be said about our Murray, but funnily enough the word impartial wouldn't crop up in a million years. LMFAO


----------



## PaulOK (Nov 13, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Apparently the new SWP preconference bulletin has oppositional articles by Holborrow, Waterson and Mark Steel amongst others.



Aren't these three consider 'semi-detached' whose stars are certainly on the wane? Indeed Steel is (literally) considered to be something of a comedian , Waterson was blamed for a derisory performance while in charge of the ANL in the mid 90's and has taken a back seat ever since and I thought Holborrow was dead! I'll have to read the articles but wouldn't be surprised if they were just going through the motions and have been put to providing oppostion for oppostion's sake in order to provide a veneer of democracy. The SWP have always had these sort of 'throw away' people within it - remember Pete Alexander? All power lays with Rees, German, Bambery and Callinicos - Nobody else matters, certainly not these three.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Surely this is the beginning of the end for the SWP?
> 
> McFarlane, Waterson, Ger Francis et al. uberHacks leaving or dissenting?
> 
> ...



If you changed the names to kuper, protz and higgins, it would be like some of the predictions of 'the end' that got thrown around about the SWP/IS in the '70s. Rumours of our imminent demise are greatly exaggerated as they say...


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> There are many things that could be said about our Murray, but funnily enough the word impartial wouldn't crop up in a million years. LMFAO


but your leadership agreed to him, so they must either disagree with you or be incompetent idiots.

which do you think?


----------



## laptop (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Rumours of our imminent demise are greatly exaggerated as they say...



I seem to remember the WRP (all four), IMG and particularly the RCP saying that.

RCP-roaders it is, then.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> If you changed the names to kuper, protz and higgins, it would be like some of the predictions of 'the end' that got thrown around about the SWP/IS in the '70s. Rumours of our imminent demise are greatly exaggerated as they say...


but now all they have left is the likes of you.....


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2007)

and dasuberdog.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

"but your leadership agreed to him, so they must either disagree with you or be incompetent idiots.
which do you think?"

I think they couldn't really give a toss about who chaired, as the sovereign body which decides the future or otherwise of respect is the respect annual conference. Funny that....


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

chaired??!!  chaired what?  you were denying any such meeting took place earlier on

what was discussed then, if not an amicable divorce?


----------



## mk12 (Nov 13, 2007)

> McFarlane, Waterson, Ger Francis et al. uberHacks leaving or dissenting?



Good! That's the type of people that i'd want leaving the SWP if I were still a member.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2007)

I think the sort of gleeful and unrepentant dishonesty from people like nwm is the reason why, political differences aside, there's so little respect or sympathy for the SWP and the hole that they've managed to dig for themselves. Nothing learnt. Nothing done wrong. No sense of personal or collective responsibility.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> chaired??!!  chaired what?  you were denying any such meeting took place earlier on
> 
> what was discussed then, if not an amicable divorce?



Can you find a quote from me on here saying this? If not, cut the bullshit and apologise. What would have been discussed from our side would have been that strange notion of letting conference decide the future of respect - a theme that has consistantly been mentioned in all our public statements and correspondence...


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> If you changed the names to kuper, protz and higgins, it would be like some of the predictions of 'the end' that got thrown around about the SWP/IS in the '70s. Rumours of our imminent demise are greatly exaggerated as they say...



...ahh but you had Cliff back then to hold things together - and a higher level of class struggle etc. to keep the activists active.

Now what you got?

er...Harman and er...those branches of the StWC that still talk to you?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I think the sort of gleeful and unrepentant dishonesty from people like nwm is the reason why, political differences aside, there's so little respect or sympathy for the SWP and the hole that they've managed to dig for themselves. Nothing learnt. Nothing done wrong. No sense of personal or collective responsibility.


When there isn't even a litttle bit of your political persona that is willing to engage with these issues, you are in trouble.  Basic dishonesty.  Puts Alistair Campbell in the shade.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 13, 2007)

Went to the NHS demo recently, saw loads of faces that I'd seen from yonks back, and thought 'what have I got in common with them, or them with reality?'

Getting loads of lefties together in a 'united front' will end in complete disaster; seen it with SLP, SA, RESPECT etc. etc.
Listened to people talking about CNWP being the greatest dynamic since the formation of the Labour Party, what a load of complete bollox.

Never thought i'd ever say this, but i'm joining the Labour Party.
At least then I can talk to normal working people without thinking that i'm from a different planet!!!!!!!


----------



## nwnm (Nov 13, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> ...ahh but you had Cliff back then to hold things together



Yeah I know all that gyrating and endless encores of "Devil Woman". If
 it wasn't for that Sue Barker everything would have been wonderful.....fucking tennis players.....


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 13, 2007)

> When you argue that the way to a revolutionary party is to concentrate on building a small revolutionary group, you have only Spartoid dogma on your side.
> 
> Now you will probably tell me that I'm misrepresenting your argument. Please then, let me preempt you. How do PR think that a mass revolutionary party will be built, given that they oppose Trotsky's Labor Party tactic.



I’ve already said my post was poorly worded. I was saying that I can’t think of a single example of where a stagiest approach has either fundamentally changed society or produced a mass revolutionary organisation. It’s one thing having an enterist tactic into a mass organisation, another thing when a tiny propaganda group like the SP or SWP thinks they can help build a mass reformist organisation through a vehicle like RESPECT or the CNWP, while having to act as shadow reformists as real reformist forces aren't there.

I don’t disagree with Trotsky’s Labor Party tactic as it goes.

You're totally wrong that I think the way to build a revolutionary party is to concentrate on building a small revolutionary group. But you can’t help your pre-conceptions as you’ve got such an aggro way of debating. You’re like the uberdog of the Socialist Party and really do the SP little favours in the way you debate.

And again your constant obsession with numbers. Do you constantly remind the many tiny CWI sections of this fact? Anyway it doesn’t matter.

Also the comparisons with 1938 are utterly ridiculous. The workers party tactic had specific connections to those times which simply don’t exist today.



> Listened to people talking about CNWP being the greatest dynamic since the formation of the Labour Party, what a load of complete bollox.



The CNWP is now little more than a website and annual conference.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 13, 2007)

*Never mind the quality........*

At least Tony Cliff was a better comedian than Mark Steel


----------



## justuname (Nov 13, 2007)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Never thought i'd ever say this, but i'm joining the Labour Party.
> At least then I can talk to normal working people without thinking that i'm from a different planet!!!!!!!



No!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 13, 2007)

> In the next few years, the unfolding of economic crises will shatter the idea that capitalism is a ‘successful’ system, the only way of organising the economy and society



Also while this might not say explicitly that capitalism is collapsing it's still and utterly ridiculous statement. It's pretty close to WPs position of saying we're in a pre-revolutionary period.

For illusions in capitalism to be shattered we would have to be crisis or near crisis.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2007)

justuname said:
			
		

> No!


I suppose the Labour Party includes a tiny minority of socialists who, however deluded, have the personality and guts to deny the leadership line.  Same can't be said of the SWP.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Can you find a quote from me on here saying this? If not, cut the bullshit and apologise. What would have been discussed from our side would have been that strange notion of letting conference decide the future of respect - a theme that has consistantly been mentioned in all our public statements and correspondence...


if it wasnt you it was certainly one of your comrades who have repeatedly denied such a meeting took place.

i don't recall seeing any apology from any of your lot for any of the lies over the last four years. so, after you....


----------



## Geoff Collier (Nov 13, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> I'm expecting - and worrying about - an RCP-style end.



Which RCP - the one from the 1940s or the more recent version?


----------



## Nigel (Nov 13, 2007)

Geoff Collier said:
			
		

> Which RCP - the one from the 1940s or the more recent version?


there still going, there SPIKED.
You can't even say they've changed from left to right, they've always been the way they are!!!!!
And so are the ones from the forties, the various fourth internationals still exist.


----------



## laptop (Nov 13, 2007)

Nigel said:
			
		

> there still going, there SPIKED.



And "Institute of Ideas" and "Sense About Science" and and and...


----------



## Nigel (Nov 13, 2007)

justuname said:
			
		

> No!


?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 13, 2007)

And the Manifesto Club, and Debating Matters .

Although now they no longer speak much openly about Marxism in the way they used to, which must mean some kind of rightward shift.

They're 'Humanists' now.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2007)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Went to the NHS demo recently, saw loads of faces that I'd seen from yonks back, and thought 'what have I got in common with them, or them with reality?'
> 
> Getting loads of lefties together in a 'united front' will end in complete disaster; seen it with SLP, SA, RESPECT etc. etc.
> Listened to people talking about CNWP being the greatest dynamic since the formation of the Labour Party, what a load of complete bollox.
> ...



I understand the pressures Nigel, but the Labour party.  

Stuffed full of the middle class anyway, so they won't understand your language.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 13, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I understand the pressures Nigel, but the Labour party.
> 
> Stuffed full of the middle class anyway, so they won't understand your language.



Most people still consider labour to represent the working class.
I might as well be in the Jehovah's Witnesses as any leftist group, they probably talk more sense!!!!!!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 14, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Are you serious?
> 
> Almost every single mass revolutionary party in history came out of a crisis in a mass social democratic party. Even the Bolsheviks themselves came out of a split in a broad party containing both revolutionary and reformist workers.
> 
> By contrast the success rate of attempts building mass revolutionary parties from scratch approaches zero. This is a core problem with the PR/WP/Spartoid model - mass parties aren't fucking built like that and they never have been.



For once I agree 100% with Nigel, but with the substitution of "reformist" for social democratic.  

One counter-example though was the LSSP in Sri Lanka which was a revolutionary party from scratch not emerging from a split in the reformist parties (which it is claimed related to the peculiar nature of Ceylon's emergence from colonialism and the failure of social democracy and stalinism to gain a foothold during that period).  It later split into reformist and revolutionary components of course.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 14, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> For once I agree 100% with Nigel, but with the substitution of "reformist" for social democratic.
> 
> One counter-example though was the LSSP in Sri Lanka which was a revolutionary party from scratch not emerging from a split in the reformist parties (which it is claimed related to the peculiar nature of Ceylon's emergence from colonialism and the failure of social democracy and stalinism to gain a foothold during that period).  It later split into reformist and revolutionary components of course.



As I understand it Sri Lanka was unique in that the broad communist party was won to trotskyism and kicked out the stalinists (unlike everywhere else). A friend of mine who has been living in that country told me that once they got into power they sold out and became reformism and trotskyism has been very discredited in that country as a consequence.

Cockney also misrepresents Socialist Alliance, SSP, Left Bloc, Die Linke type parties, I don't see them as reformist/social democratic but rather coalitions of reformists and revolutionaries.

At the moment, revolutionary organisations can't fill the vacuum left by the collapse of mass reformist parties like Labour in the UK.  There are a layer of activists and trade union militants who may not be revolutionary but want to fight back. To give an example, there are working class activists who want to defend council housing but still have illusions in reformism.  There are trade unionists leading grassroots struggles against privatisation.

Because of the collapse of the traditional social democratic parties and the neoliberal offensive there is a whole layer of discontented people in society. There are people who may not be revolutionaries but nevertheless support grassroots methods of mass struggle. These people are looking for a home and want to join a broad party that fights on these issues.

The trick is how we can build a "half-way house" as a bridge to more militant politics. That is: How can we build a coalition as revolutionaries with people who want to fightback but are not revolutionaries without demanding that they become revolutionaries but at the same time not propping up illusions in reformist methods?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

Extracts from the internal bulletin are up on Socialist Unity, although the authors names are not given. Oppositional articles apparently include ones from Mark Steel, Jan Nielson, Paul Holborow, Julie Waterson, Simon Hester.

It seems that there have been further expulsions and resignations. Ian Drumond, a former SW platform loyalist in Scotland and President of SOAS Students Union, was expelled. His crime was objecting to an order from the local fulltimer that SOAS Respect, with 10 paid up members, should send 12 delegates to conference!

Tonyc, one of the moderators on Lenin's tomb was given the whole "your subs aren't up to date" treatment and has now resigned. I gather that he's an RMT activist.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 14, 2007)

Wasn't aware that Mark Steel (while obviously still a broad supporter of the party) was a paid up member of the SWP these days or active in the SWP.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Wasn't aware that Mark Steel (while obviously still a broad supporter of the party) was a paid up member of the SWP these days or active in the SWP.



It turns out that he had always been paying subs but that someone had removed him from the membership list without telling him. Then he submitted an article for the first SWP discussion bulletin and was told it couldn't go in because he wasn't a member. He kicked up a fuss and was allowed to have a piece in the second bulletin. 

He's not the only dissident member to have got the "your subs aren't up to date / you seem to have been removed from the membership list" treatment in recent weeks.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

I see there is an explicit condemnation of the attack on Rahman on the SUN blog, from A Respect (Renewal) councillor.  

I guess nwmn et al will be along apologising for their false attacks on those (RR) councilors now then.  n the name of unity n all


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 14, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> It turns out that he had always been paying subs but that someone had removed him from the membership list without telling him. Then he submitted an article for the first SWP discussion bulletin and was told it couldn't go in because he wasn't a member. He kicked up a fuss and was allowed to have a piece in the second bulletin.
> 
> He's not the only dissident member to have got the "your subs aren't up to date / you seem to have been removed from the membership list" treatment in recent weeks.



Could have been a genuine mistake in Steel's case. The last SWP conference I was at discussed the odd concept of "non-registered members" and it was mentioned that their were long standing comrades like Mark steel and others who still identified with the party but weren't paid up members and it was important not to forget them or something.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> I see there is an explicit condemnation of the attack on Rahman on the SUN blog, from A Respect (Renewal) councillor.
> 
> I guess nwmn et al will be along apologising for their false attacks on those (RR) councilors now then.  n the name of unity n all


your in no position to demand any apology - having slithered away with the usual bullshit when one was asked of you.... go and fuck yourself


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

no slithering boy - just putting you under the spotlight, and you're withering under its glare.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13554

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13552

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13553

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13531

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13532

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13533


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> no slithering boy - just putting you under the spotlight, and you're withering under its glare.



so where is the quote of me saying that no meeting took place then bullshit merchant?


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

replied to already, mr pot


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> replied to already, mr pot



no - you never found a single quote from me stating this. you are a liar. Its that simple. present a quote from me or piss off


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13554
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13552
> 
> ...



Everything is fine. There is nothing to see here. Move along.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

nebver even bothered looking. everyone knows you _and you comrades_ weere denying any such meeting ever took place, if they can be arsed to look back over all 28pages of this thread, or the blogs (I have better things to do with my life). You're just getting hysterical as you have been shown up as a mindless repeater of whatever you are told, and exposed as a member of an organisation that is happy to lie to its members, and for them to lie to everyone they meet.

Enjoy 'building' respect in Wales.  Do you thin k you'll get even 1% of the vote next time?  I dont.  they're dead, and your political credibility is 0.  Well done.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 14, 2007)

> Cockney also misrepresents Socialist Alliance, SSP, Left Bloc, Die Linke type parties, I don't see them as reformist/social democratic but rather coalitions of reformists and revolutionaries.



I think there is a big difference between these organisations. As said before if a mass reformist organisation is thrown up by working class struggles then I think that revolutionaries would be idiots not to relate to that and in many situations have entryist tactics. I also agree with Nigel and FG that many/most revolutionary organisations came out of mass reformist/social democratic organisations but my post was poorly worded. What my objection to is the stagist approach and also the approach that suggests that tiny revolutionary groups can help build a reformist organisation from scratch and then from that, at some unknown future point, a mass revolutionary party can emerge. Is there any examples of this in history?

It is one things relating to social democratic and stalinist forces that have a historical material base and another trying to get things like RESPECT and the CNWP off the ground. It's also one thing relating to reformist organisations and another trying to build them up from nothing by acting as shadow reformists as real reformist forces don't exist in the CNWP or RESPECT.



> There are a layer of activists and trade union militants who may not be revolutionary but want to fight back.



And the only way the left can link up with these militants/activists is through the ballot box and broad left electoral organisations? What happened to united fronts and active campaigns? I think campaigns like DCH are great, but the logic doesn't follow from that that we need RESPECT.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> so where is the quote of me saying that no meeting took place then bullshit merchant?



So, nwnm time to put up or shut up.... 

*a) Do you accept that a meeting took place between leading figures in the SWP and Respect Renewal?*

yes or no?


*b) Have the Party officially (or unoffically) told you about this meeting?*

If so, what did they tell you?

If not, why not?
*
c) What, in your opinion, was this meeting about?*

*d) do you believe that the attacks on Cllr Rahman were perpetrated by Respect Renewal people?*

yes or no?*

e) Do you support your councillors meetings with the Lib Dems?*

yes or no?

Simple questions, some simple answers please...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 14, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Could have been a genuine mistake in Steel's case. The last SWP conference I was at discussed the odd concept of "non-registered members" and it was mentioned that their were long standing comrades like Mark steel and others who still identified with the party but weren't paid up members and it was important not to forget them or something.



The membership report in the first pre conference bulletin quotes a "registered" membership of *5,938* and an "unregistered" membership of *1,700* giving a total claimed membership of *7,638*.  

It's a nonsense of course, as the total of only 1,200 signing the loyalty pledge, aka "petition for unity in Respect", shows.  I presume these figures are plummeting downwards only a daily basis.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I presume these figures are plummeting downwards only a daily basis.



You're presuming they take members who leave in digsust off their membership list?

...not until the standing order's been cancelled!


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

or sooner in the case of mark steel & tony c...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 14, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> As I understand it Sri Lanka was unique in that the broad communist party was won to trotskyism and kicked out the stalinists (unlike everywhere else). A friend of mine who has been living in that country told me that once they got into power they sold out and became reformism and trotskyism has been very discredited in that country as a consequence.
> ...



It was the act of getting into power that they sold out on.  They actually had high hopes of winning the general election in 1960 and thus becoming the world's first revolutionary party to win a majority in a bourgeois election.  The LSSP did not win (though they did well), but later in that parliament formed a coalition government with the radical bourgeois Sri Lanka Freedom Party of Mrs Bandaranaike and were expelled from the Fourth International.  

The 'betrayal' of the LSSP became a cause celebre of the Healyite group for many decades, who argued that it was the ultimate outcome of 'pabloite liquidationism'.  In fact the FI behaved perfectly properly, criticising them over their relations with the SLFP while seeking to hold on to them for as long as possible, but clearly expelling them once they had crossed the threshold of entering a bourgeois government (albeit one with a radical veneer).


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 14, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And the only way the left can link up with these militants/activists is through the ballot box and broad left electoral organisations? What happened to united fronts and active campaigns? I think campaigns like DCH are great, but the logic doesn't follow from that that we need RESPECT.



My practical experience is that a lot of people you meet in DCH, Stop the War, Climate Change protests, picket lines desire to go beyond one issue campaigns and desire a broad party that also stands in elections - I often meet the same faces on different campaigns. Obviously you don't want to get sucked into electoralism but elections do provide a good opportunity to talk to people about socialism and critique neoliberalism.
I think Michael Lavalette's conception of socialist councillors as "community shop stewards" taking up every issue of concern to working class communities was a good model.

If revolutionaries don't build these broad parties the vacuum would probably be filled by breakaways from the Labour Party with dubious politics rather than a party focused on mass action and grassroots struggle.

I also think that the potential to build a broad eco-socialist party to the left of Labour and the nationalists in Wales is actually objectively quite favourable. I was even talking to a Left Labour councillor a month ago who was considering joining Respect - don't know how the split will effect things!


----------



## lewislewis (Nov 14, 2007)

Udo, the conditions aren't favourable at all, as soon as you formed something you'd just start bickering amongst yourselves and obsess with forming internal factions and 'platforms'.

The campaigning types you're on about should a) join the mainstream party they're most comfortable with (probably the Greens, plaid or someone like the ssp), b) stand in elections as independent socialists or c) not bother with elections at all.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I think Michael Lavalette's conception of socialist councillors as "community shop stewards" taking up every issue of concern to working class communities was a good model.



Interestingly similar to what we were discussing in this thread...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 14, 2007)

> My practical experience is that a lot of people you meet in DCH, Stop the War, Climate Change protests, picket lines desire to go beyond one issue campaigns and desire a broad party that also stands in elections - I often meet the same faces on different campaigns. Obviously you don't want to get sucked into electoralism but elections do provide a good opportunity to talk to people about socialism and critique neoliberalism.



I’m not so sure people do want this. If they do it certainly hasn’t translated into anything tangible in RESPECT or the CNWP whose memberships are both tiny and dominated by revolutionaries. If there really was a mass push for a new reformist party then I’d say revolutionaries would be idiots not to engage with that and they could be open about their politics and openly vote for revolutionary positions because they’d be a minority. But acting as shadow reformists to try and attract real reformist forces will never work in my view and will just end up re-enforcing left reformist ideas. Galloway has never stopped telling us how RESPECT is in the anti-marxist tradition of Keir Hardie.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> In fact the FI behaved perfectly properly, criticising them over their relations with the SLFP while seeking to hold on to them for as long as possible, but clearly expelling them once they had crossed the threshold of entering a bourgeois government (albeit one with a radical veneer).



Pity that they didn't behave so properly when their Brazilian group "crossed the threshold of entering a bourgeois government", isn't it.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> nebver even bothered looking. everyone knows you _and you comrades_ weere denying any such meeting ever took place, if they can be arsed to look back over all 28pages of this thread, or the blogs (I have better things to do with my life).



If you had better things to do you wouldn't spend so much time posting on here or readng the blogs.....a bit sad really. still waiting for you to quote me btw


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> So, nwnm time to put up or shut up....
> 
> *a) Do you accept that a meeting took place between leading figures in the SWP and Respect Renewal?*
> 
> ...


*

Lets see - 
A) I accept meetings took place between us and what is now calling itself respect renewal - we were trying to keep everyone on board for conference...

B) knew about this both officially and unofficially, and the gallowayistas were trying to get us to exit with them retaining the name. My responce to my mate at the centre was TTTFO

C) see above

D) the email, which I posted a part of earlier would suggest that the attack was carried out by supporters of respect remedial.

E) If they actually happened, I would not be in favour of them. Oli Rahman has, I think denied that this has happened.

Thats about as plain as it gets.*


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Lets see -
> A) I accept meetings took place between us and what is now calling itself respect renewal - we were trying to keep everyone on board for conference...
> 
> B) knew about this both officially and unofficially, and the gallowayistas were trying to get us to exit with them retaining the name. My responce to my mate at the centre was TTTFO
> ...



Thanks nwnm...your position is now clearer.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> A) I accept meetings took place between us and what is now calling itself respect renewal - _*we were trying to keep everyone on board for conference...*_



(My emphasis)

Apologies to everyone else for the c&p but it'll be interesting to see what nwnm (and other SWPs)make of this.... 


So this is a lie?



> Let’s be absolutely clear. The SWP leadership in Respect have been involved in negotiations with the non-SWP leadership of Respect with a view to achieving an “amicable separation"



Did this conversation happen?



> On Monday 22 October John Rees rang Alan Thornett at 9.00 that evening to ask Alan if it was correct that a document critical of the SWP was being prepared. Alan confirmed that it was correct. When asked if it would be signed by many members of the National Council, Alan confirmed that it would be. John Rees’s response to this was, “in that case, the SWP might as well call it a day”. Alan asked, “Do you mean that you would walk away from Respect?” John Rees replied, “What would be the point, any more?”
> 
> On Wednesday 24 October Alan Thornett phoned John Rees to ask for a meeting between the two sides. John Rees agreed to meet the following day (Thursday 25 October) and agreed that the basis of the meeting would be to discuss an “amicable separation”.



How about this?



> The first meeting was on Thursday 25 October. Present were Lindsey German, John Rees, Chris Bambery and Martin Smith (SWP National Organiser) for the SWP.
> 
> The meeting had been called to discuss the possibility of an “amicable separation” and had been co-ordinated in advance by our mutual friend with this subject matter as the topic for the negotiations



or this?



> At this first meeting, the facilitator gave his assessment of this first stage of the negotiations with these words, “Everyone agrees that there is no future together. We are only talking about the terms and the timing of the separation.”



what your leaders actually were concerned about was this...



> John Rees said that the SWP could not agree to walking away and leaving the other side with the name. They could walk away if neither side got the name.



...and contradicting your claims above...



> “We agree that both sides are separating. That neither side will speak out as the pre-October respect. That the name to be used by each side will be Respect with a qualifier.”
> 
> John Rees said that if we come to an agreement then there would be no need for a conference.



there's plenty more, but to sum up:



> The SWP have denied to its membership and to others that they were involved in these negotiations. In our opinion, they have negotiated in bad faith. They have put out material stating that they are not separating. This is the opposite of the truth.



so, nwnm et al...
this leaves a few options for the apparent contradiction:

a) The people quoted are lying

b) You're lying

c) the SWP leadership is lying to you.

Which is it?


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> If you had better things to do you wouldn't spend so much time posting on here or readng the blogs.....a bit sad really. still waiting for you to quote me btw


takes no time at all to point out your shortcomings with the actualite nwnm.

chilango has had the patience to point ourt the blatant contradictions in the positions, actions, and statements from your party, which expose you as a shallow, dull, liar, so i'll happily leave you to ignore him, and to throw another hissy fit.




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> i am a fucking imbecilic liar


happy now?


----------



## fanciful (Nov 14, 2007)

How about... they're all lying!


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

c'mon chilango you know i'll stick with A) out of those choices


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> takes no time at all to point out your shortcomings with the actualite nwnm.
> 
> chilango has had the patience to point ourt the blatant contradictions in the positions, actions, and statements from your party, which expose you as a shallow, dull, liar, so i'll happily leave you to ignore him, and to throw another hissy fit.
> 
> ...



still no genuine quote then?


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> happy now?


Naughty.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> c'mon chilango you know i'll stick with A) out of those choices



I wouldn't expect anything less! (and for DU to use his cadre discipline as an excuse not to comment)

But seriously...it's not looking good for you guys is it?
A leadership hiding the truth about its conduct from its members. Lying and smearing. Hamoraging (sp!) membership, long term activists expelled or quitting,  spreading dissent amongst the remaining members, coalition talks with the Lib dems, complete alienation of all potential allies. What next? SW to go daily with a sports page and youth footy touirnaments?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 14, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Pity that they didn't behave so properly when their Brazilian group "crossed the threshold of entering a bourgeois government", isn't it.



The class character of the Lula government was far more complex in the beginning.  Since it became clearer, there has been a de facto parting of the ways and the FI supports the building of PSoL and those FI supporters who support this approach. 

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1262

When Militant were in the Labour Party they called for support for a bourgeois government (Labour) and said that Militant MPs would loyally take their seats in a Labour government and join the left in the Tribune group (!) in putting pressure on it.  While there were Militant supporters who were parliamentary candidates during the period of a Labour government, none were ever elected so we never got a chance to see what they would do in practice when faced with voting for a government whip and risking exclusion from the party.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 14, 2007)

Just to make a ludicrously obvious point; it's possible that a meeting took place between Swaps and RR for an 'amicable' seperation, _despite_ the fact that the Swap element was opposed to the split.

So therefore all this bollocks about the choices is therefore meaningless.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Just to make a ludicrously obvious point; it's possible that a meeting took place between Swaps and RR for an 'amicable' seperation, _despite_ the fact that the Swap element was opposed to the split.
> 
> So therefore all this bollocks about the choices is therefore meaningless.




If that's the case, then the quotes above suggest that Rees and co caved in without much of a fight. Just as worrying for you guys really.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The class character of the Lula government was far more complex in the beginning.



I would describe this as self-deluding rubbish, except that I know that you don't even believe it yourself.

Lula's government was, right from the start, a coalition of the PT (a capitalist workers party) with outright capitalist parties like the Liberals Party and the Progressive Party. The USFI did not cross class lines by accepting Ministerial office in a PT government - that would be a tactical issue. It crossed class lines by accepting Ministerial office in a government including some of the traditional parties of Brazilian capital.

The problem, as you correctly point out, in Sri Lanka would not have been with the LSSP taking office. The problem was that it took office as part of a coalition with the main capitalist parties. Quite rightly they were expelled from the USFI as soon as they had done so. What changed in the meantime wasn't the nature of the crime, but the willingness of the USFI to compromise on this basic principle.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 14, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> If that's the case, then the quotes above suggest that Rees and co caved in without much of a fight. Just as worrying for you guys really.



Or perhaps the meeting was called after it became absolutely clear there was no arguing with the Galloway faction, and some kind of amicable agreement needed to be met? I believe all this commotion is what could be referred to as 'hyper-speculation'.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> still no genuine quote then?


notes that you did exactly what i said you'd do.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> But seriously...it's not looking good for you guys is it?
> A leadership hiding the truth about its conduct from its members. Lying and smearing. Hamoraging (sp!) membership, long term activists expelled or quitting,  spreading dissent amongst the remaining members, coalition talks with the Lib dems, complete alienation of all potential allies. What next? SW to go daily with a sports page and youth footy touirnaments?



As stated before, our imminent demise has been 'predicted' over several decades by all sorts of characters. I predict that you'll still be predicting the end of the SWP <name change not withstanding; we used to be the IS and the Socialist Review Group beforehand> in another ten years 

One of my fave predictions of imminent demise was a little pamphlet entitled "IS - the crack up". It was prduced by a group called C.O.B.I. Ever heard of 'em? They don't exist any more..... Hate to sound like one of Harry Enfield's old Gits, but "your dead and we're not" would sound apposite


----------



## nwnm (Nov 14, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> notes that you did exactly what i said you'd do.



notes that you still haven't found a genuine quote of me saying something you accused me of coming out with


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> As stated before, our imminent demise has been 'predicted' over several decades by all sorts of characters.



This is entirely right. Left groups of more than a few dozen can survive almost indefinitely. No matter how mad a group, or how much of a fuck up it has made, total disappearance is a rarity if the group had any size to begin with.

That said, from the outside, this looks like one of the most difficult periods the SWP has gone through for a while and while I would be astonished to see it disappear, it does look like somewhat reduced circumstances are on the agenda. The online census was a daft idea, giving the impression of weakness rather than strength. There are clearly relatively significant numbers of activists who have left or will leave in the near future. The hard won periphery has been jetissoned almost over night. 

None of which means that the SWP is wrong, by the way. You can be right on the politics and still take a big organisational hit. Such is life.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2007)

By the way, nwnm, if you can tear yourself away from squabbling with belboid for a moment, what do you think of Ian Drummond's article? Is he making it all up too? Or is it true that the local SWP organiser showed up to a meeting of SOAS Respect to argue that their group with a handful of paid up Respect members should take twelve conference delegates? And do you think that's acceptable in a democratic organisation?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 15, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Or perhaps the meeting was called after it became absolutely clear there was no arguing with the Galloway faction, and some kind of amicable agreement needed to be met? I believe all this commotion is what could be referred to as 'hyper-speculation'.



So why don't the SWP leaders end this 'hyper-speculation' by publishing their account of it?

That they do not do this when they know there was a third party observer, implies that the account of the others at those meetings and their nature and purpose is broadly right.  

I repeat: no-one in the SWP believes that the SWP has 5,938 'registered' members and 1,700 'unregistered' members.  So if the leadership can lie to the members about that, they can lie about other things.  How can you trust a word they say?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 15, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I would describe this as self-deluding rubbish, except that I know that you don't even believe it yourself.
> 
> Lula's government was, right from the start, a coalition of the PT (a capitalist workers party) with outright capitalist parties like the Liberals Party and the Progressive Party. The USFI did not cross class lines by accepting Ministerial office in a PT government - that would be a tactical issue. It crossed class lines by accepting Ministerial office in a government including some of the traditional parties of Brazilian capital.
> 
> The problem, as you correctly point out, in Sri Lanka would not have been with the LSSP taking office. The problem was that it took office as part of a coalition with the main capitalist parties. Quite rightly they were expelled from the USFI as soon as they had done so. What changed in the meantime wasn't the nature of the crime, but the willingness of the USFI to compromise on this basic principle.



Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this.  And in my view the Militant in the 1970s and 1980s, both in Britain and internationally, sowed far more illusions in bourgeois governments and parties than anything the FI has done.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 15, 2007)

Mark Steel on the SWP:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=6730445&posted=1#post6730445


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 15, 2007)

......


----------



## nwnm (Nov 15, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> This is entirely right. Left groups of more than a few dozen can survive almost indefinitely. No matter how mad a group, or how much of a fuck up it has made, total disappearance is a rarity if the group had any size to begin with.
> 
> That said, from the outside, this looks like one of the most difficult periods the SWP has gone through for a while and while I would be astonished to see it disappear, it does look like somewhat reduced circumstances are on the agenda. The online census was a daft idea, giving the impression of weakness rather than strength. There are clearly relatively significant numbers of activists who have left or will leave in the near future. The hard won periphery has been jetissoned almost over night.
> 
> ...


----------



## nwnm (Nov 15, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> By the way, nwnm, if you can tear yourself away from squabbling with belboid for a moment, what do you think of Ian Drummond's article? Is he making it all up too? Or is it true that the local SWP organiser showed up to a meeting of SOAS Respect to argue that their group with a handful of paid up Respect members should take twelve conference delegates? And do you think that's acceptable in a democratic organisation?



Never heard of Ian Drummond, so can't comment on its authenticity. If it happened that way it was a bloody stupid thing to do.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 15, 2007)

wrt the petition - it is also possible that actually the lack of signatures is more to do with organisational incompetence. I didn't hear about the petition through the branch, I heard about it online. And there's still about 4 out of 6 active members in Preston I'd say probably don't know about it.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 15, 2007)

Yeap it's all ok. You've still got 7000 members.

I honestly can't see why Mark Steel is making comments about facing up to reality.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 15, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> wrt the petition - it is also possible that actually the lack of signatures is more to do with organisational incompetence. I didn't hear about the petition through the branch, I heard about it online. And there's still about 4 out of 6 active members in Preston I'd say probably don't know about it.



There is probably an element of truth in this - there are millions who don't have internet access, time or interest as a regular thing - something thats useful for those here who do to remember.

Still smells like a very rotten excuse re the huge gap between party membership figures and stated party membership figures though - a gap that seems to reflect that between what party members are told and what party leadership know


----------



## Xerxes (Nov 15, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> There is probably an element of truth in this - there are millions who don't have internet access, time or interest as a regular thing - something thats useful for those here who do to remember.



I would have thought that the district organisers would have internet access and would phone members to see if they wished their names added to the petition. Open to abuse I accept, however, the idea that it is lack of internet access or organisational incompetance is flimsy to say the least.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> As stated before, our imminent demise has been 'predicted' over several decades by all sorts of characters. I predict that you'll still be predicting the end of the SWP <name change not withstanding; we used to be the IS and the Socialist Review Group beforehand> in another ten years
> 
> One of my fave predictions of imminent demise was a little pamphlet entitled "IS - the crack up". It was prduced by a group called C.O.B.I. Ever heard of 'em? They don't exist any more..... Hate to sound like one of Harry Enfield's old Gits, but "your dead and we're not" would sound apposite



I'm not predicting the SWP will completely dissappear after this...however I think the situation is the most serious you've ever faced, and you're left with these options I think - 

The WRP road where a handful of loyalists retain the name and the illusion of the "mass Party" steadfastly ignoring reality and that the breakthrough is just around the corner. This mindset reinforced by increasingly "cultlike" behavior. The posts here where SWPers painstakingly refuse to acknowledge the problems are an indication that this route is, at present, imo the most likely

The Militant/SP road where some lessons are learned (maybe the hard way) and a significant rethink is needed to reposition a much smaller party within the British left. This would require those within the SWP raising doubts and critiques actually being listened top rather than expelled/frozen out.

The IMG road where most of you dissappear from the SWP model completely...

Now having pìssed nearly everyone off  can i point nwnm, DU etc to the Mark Steel thread?




PS yeah I know who the COBI were...dunno how they're relevent to me though, I'm in the Green Party!


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> There is probably an element of truth in this - there are millions who don't have internet access, time or interest as a regular thing - something thats useful for those here who do to remember.




True enough, but not for SWP members. There's loads of computers in universities these days!

tbf, if the SWP can get its members stood at 6am selling papers to factory workers (do they still do that) or on a high street on a Saturday lunchtime, then it can get them down an intert cafe/library for 15 mins...this is the vanguard we're talking about here after all...


----------



## the button (Nov 15, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Now having pìssed nearly everyone off  can i point nwnm, DU etc to the Mark Steel thread?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2007)

Mark Steele does not exist - he is an un-comedian.  The highly acclaimed "Mark Steele Lectures" were actually written and performed by John Rees.  All SWP pictures containing the 'so-called Mark Steele' now have a Mark Steele shaped hole in them.

E2a: anyone laughing at 'Mark Steele' jokes will henceforth be regarded as 'objectively Gallowayite' - or even, 'a bit Muslim'.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 15, 2007)

one interesting thing- there are a few council by elections coming up in southwark and hackney where i know respect are organised. they had better sort out who owns the name sharpish- like this weekend preferably...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 15, 2007)

Xerxes said:
			
		

> I would have thought that the district organisers would have internet access and would phone members to see if they wished their names added to the petition. Open to abuse I accept, however, the idea that it is lack of internet access or organisational incompetance is flimsy to say the least.



Y-eaaah - I think you all have an elaborate vision of how much organisation is actually done in the Party - particularly in the counties where there are smaller branches of around 10 or less. Most areas don't have organisers, and a fair few only communicate with National Office when conference comes around, or when the papers are late in the post.

Look, if in Preston where we sup tea with Lavalette on a weekly basis there's no mention of the petition and even when there is, some members still can't be arsed to sign it - what hope is there for vast swathes of te rest of the place? I agree that SWP membership figures are whack, but not _that_ much. Put simply, our regional branches more than often rely upon a hardcore of one or two members who pull everything into shape - the rest turn up most of the time and help set tables here and there.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Y-eaaah - I think you all have an elaborate vision of how much organisation is actually done in the Party - particularly in the counties where there are smaller branches of around 10 or less. Most areas don't have organisers, and a fair few only communicate with National Office when conference comes around, or when the papers are late in the post.
> 
> Look, if in Preston where we sup tea with Lavalette on a weekly basis there's no mention of the petition and even when there is, some members still can't be arsed to sign it - what hope is there for vast swathes of te rest of the place? I agree that SWP membership figures are whack, but not _that_ much. Put simply, our regional branches more than often rely upon a hardcore of one or two members who pull everything into shape - the rest turn up most of the time and help set tables here and there.



Fair points...

but...given that so much of the SWPs public activity revolves around getting members of the public to sign petitiions you'd think that one that they themselves set up would at least get signed by most members within a coupla weeks of its launching.

Unless of course it isn't that important...


----------



## JHE (Nov 15, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Put simply, our regional branches more than often rely upon a hardcore of one or two members who pull everything into shape - the rest turn up most of the time and help set tables here and there.



Sloppy, undisciplined, bloody Mensheviks, eh?

Still, I bet you are hardcore and not just a table-setter.  I wonder how long you'll last.  Eighteen months?  Two years?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 15, 2007)

I _tried_ to tell you.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> .... Put simply, our regional branches more than often rely upon a hardcore of one or two members who pull everything into shape - the rest turn up most of the time and help set tables here and there.



really? Then it must be time to discuss an apparent problem of involvement and inclusivity. What has caused this sorry state of affairs where it exists?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Look, if in *Preston* where we sup tea with Lavalette on a weekly basis ...



I think you mean Lancashire don't you?  Do you live in Preston?  How many SWP members do actually live in Preston?


----------



## BarryB (Nov 16, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> one interesting thing- there are a few council by elections coming up in southwark and hackney where i know respect are organised. they had better sort out who owns the name sharpish- like this weekend preferably...



Springfield by election in Hackney will be two horse race between the Tories (who hold the seat) and Labour.

Tory Councillor Eric Ollerenshaw resigned so he can concentrate on being parliamentary candidate for Lancaster and Fleetwood.

If either of the Respect factions stand they will receive a derisory vote.

BarryB


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> really? Then it must be time to discuss an apparent problem of involvement and inclusivity. What has caused this sorry state of affairs where it exists?



Is this _the first_ you've heard of this Groucho?


----------



## Xerxes (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Y-eaaah - I think you all have an elaborate vision of how much organisation is actually done in the Party - particularly in the counties where there are smaller branches of around 10 or less. Most areas don't have organisers, and a fair few only communicate with National Office when conference comes around, or when the papers are late in the post.



If this is correct then the organisational skills of the SWP have certainly degenerated since I was a member.  Every week all members and supporters were informed of activities and meetings _unless _they specifically asked not to be, from a list kept by a trusted comrade. As for smaller branches I would have thought that informing people of what was going on should be easier as there are less people to inform.



> Look, if in Preston where we sup tea with Lavalette on a weekly basis there's no mention of the petition and even when there is, some members still can't be arsed to sign it - what hope is there for vast swathes of te rest of the place?



Why not? my experience was that even at social events, (perhaps even more so, because there were people at them who were not seen personaly except at that time) current events and political tactics were discussed.



> I agree that SWP membership figures are whack, but not _that_ much.



Again from personal experience I can say that in some branches the official membership lists that I saw had no bearing to reality. Even allowing for inactive members who paid subs, up to 50% of the names could be of people who no longer had any connection with the SWP at all. Trying to remove these names, however was all but impossible.



> Put simply, our regional branches more than often rely upon a hardcore of one or two members who pull everything into shape - the rest turn up most of the time and help set tables here and there.




I accept this, but again it only takes one or two dedicated individuals to inform others of what is going on, and in the case of the on-line petition getting a list of those with no web access but who wish to be included on it is not a major time consuming task.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 16, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> So why don't the SWP leaders end this 'hyper-speculation' by publishing their account of it?
> 
> I repeat: no-one in the SWP believes that the SWP has 5,938 'registered' members and 1,700 'unregistered' members.  So if the leadership can lie to the members about that, they can lie about other things.  How can you trust a word they say?



You are closer to the ground than I am (live in rural part of scotland) but when i lived in London there seemed to be SWP Everywhere- loads of meetings- loads of paper sales etc. Doesnt this figure feel about right (assuming that 80% of members like in most parties, do nothing but pay their subs)


----------



## the button (Nov 16, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> (assuming that 80% of members like in most parties, do nothing but pay their subs)


Yeah, but you're the Revolutionary Party, innit.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 16, 2007)

> You are closer to the ground than I am (live in rural part of scotland) but when i lived in London there seemed to be SWP Everywhere- loads of meetings- loads of paper sales etc. Doesnt this figure feel about right (assuming that 80% of members like in most parties, do nothing but pay their subs)



Now days you see lefty paper sales (which have always been majority SWP) less and less and you also hardly ever see SWP posters (or any lefty posters) about (Mark Steel makes this point). I think this is partly their ever diminishing membership and partly because they had to sell off their print shop.

In the SWP all members are meant to be active. I should think they have around 1000 active members and about 2000 who do nothing much more than pay subs. And after what has happened recently I should think that those figures are heading downwards.


----------



## lewislewis (Nov 16, 2007)

Will there now be two separate Respect parties, possibly contesting the same elections?


----------



## JHE (Nov 16, 2007)

Let's hope so!

If fact I think it's possible they'll do deals to avoid standing against each other - or at least minimise the duplication.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 16, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> really? Then it must be time to discuss an apparent problem of involvement and inclusivity. What has caused this sorry state of affairs where it exists?



It's an issue which I think has probably always existed - most members, especially those in work (the bulk to ward off the myths) simply don't have time to do full-time organising. Revolutionary parties have always relied upon certain people in different areas who have the organisational nouse, the time and the gumption to get out and do. That's nothing new.

We're all kept up to date with what's happening, generally speaking.

To Fisher_Gate, of the members that I consider active there are around 5 out of 6-7 who would consider themselves in the Preston Branch that live in Preston the city. That's not so bad.


----------



## the button (Nov 16, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> I think it's possible they'll do deals to avoid standing against each other - or at least minimise the duplication.


Nah. This is the far left we're talking about. They'll probably *only *stand in seats where they're standing against each other.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> To Fisher_Gate, of the members that I consider active there are around 5 out of 6-7 who would consider themselves in the Preston Branch that live in Preston the city. That's not so bad.



Well, two of them are a couple who were in the SWP before they moved to the city and are longstanding residents, two of them are longstanding members (ie 4-5 years +), a couple who moved to the city originally as students and have simply stayed on, so that means that a maximum of one person has joined the SWP in the last five years and still lives in the city (assuming that its not the one who lives in a village outside the city but still within the formal council boundaries, in which case it would be zero!). 

That's not much to show for four years of having a councillor *and* a full time SWP organiser based in the city for the last 18 months, is it?  

And what was the CC's contributions in the first pre conference bulletin about then?

_"SWP branches like Preston ... have become vibrant because they have recruited young people and key activists out of the movement.  There is no secret formula: the branches have fought hard to win people to our ideas and have created a culture of recruitment in their branches.
...
In Preston ... older comrades and their organisers have recruited a new layer of activists.  ... Lavalette ... plays a pivotal role guiding and developing our new members" (CC page 11)_

More bullsh*t - like the national membership figures of 5,938 plus 1,700?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

_That must be one motherfucking vibrant new recruit_


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> Will there now be two separate Respect parties, possibly contesting the same elections?



The idea of a split seems a little farcical to me. While the leaders have fallen out, the majority of branches oppose a split.

For example, in Wales, which Lewislewis takes a keen interest in, the people sympathetic to either side of the debate in Respect actually get on with each other politically and are in broad agreement over local strategy and have no desire to divide into two separate organisations and there is no polarisation into two camps. I expect it is like this in most Respect branches. Admittedly, we don't have the biggest Respect branch in the country - but plenty of potential!

On Preston: I would be interested on what impact Respect has had there and how they have built as an organisation. Michael Lavalette seems an excellent councillor to me.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 16, 2007)

> That must be one motherfucking vibrant new recruit



ROTFLMAO


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> Will there now be two separate Respect parties, possibly contesting the same elections?



One of the items on the agenda of the aborted talks from the Renewal side was a non-aggression pact for elections.  The SWP cancelled that particular discussion and are clearly not interested in this - and to judge from Rahman's refusal to deny the possibility of himself standing against Galloway, it looks a distinct possibility that the SWP will want to stand in elections against the Respect Renewal camp.

The record of the SWP standing in England in elections against other socialist candidates is not a good one though you have to go back a long period in time, as this particular example shows:

Birmingham Ladywood by election 18th August 1977
.
John Sever 	Labour 	8,227
Quentin Davies 	Conservative 	4,402
Anthony Reed-Herbert 	National Front 	888
Kenneth Hardeman 	Liberal 	765
*Raghib Ahsan 	Socialist Unity 	534*
James Hunte 	Independent 	336
*Kim Gordon 	Socialist Workers Party 	152*
George Matthews 	Independent Conservative 	71
Peter Courtney 	Reform Party 	63
William Boaks 	Air Road Public Safety 	46

Raghib Ahsan, of course, is the same one who stood for Respect in May and is, I presume, in the 'Renewal camp'.  Socialist Unity was an attempt by the IMG to get an electoral alliance to the left of Labour, which the SWP strongly opposed at that time as a diversion from 'building the revolutionary party'.  The IMG appealed for joint candidacies with the SWP, but they refused - despite the SWP being four times the size of the IMG at the time, it was quite humiliating for them to get only one quarter of the vote of the IMG candidate.  Could history repeat itself, as farce, again?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

Fisher I can't actually see Oliur Rahman standing against Galloway or Respect (unrenewed) standing against Respect Renewal just as Respect would generally avoid standing against the Socialist Party.

But I just don't see how you can talk of Respect splitting cleanly into two organisations - the organisation is not split down the middle into two clear polarised factions.

I would think only in Tower Hamlets, South Manchester and Birmingham would there be branches clearly alligned with the Respect Renewal camp.

Only in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham are branches clearly polarised into two camps.

In most branches, people might have supported either faction but generally work well together and don't want to split.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> But I just don't see how you can talk of Respect splitting cleanly into two organisations - the organisation is not split down the middle into two clear polarised factions.



You miss the point - it doesn't matter what you want. It doesn't matter what any wider membership wants. It never did. That was never in the plan. It matters what GG and pals and the SWP want. _That's all that ever mattered._ And that's why it's failed and came to this. It's done. How can you not see it?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> one interesting thing- there are a few council by elections coming up in southwark and hackney where i know respect are organised. they had better sort out who owns the name sharpish- like this weekend preferably...



Linda Smith is the nominations officer with the Electoral Commission.  Unless that is overturned, no candidate who stands as 'Respect' can do so without her endorsement.  If after the conference the SWP try to challenge that with the Electoral Commission, Linda will simply claim the 'conference' had no democratic legitimacy.  The only people who will gain from that are the lawyers and, no doubt, the courts will have to rule on whether the 12 delegates from SOAS Student Respect representing less than ten paid up members are legitimate or not.  

Which is why the Renewal side wanted to have discussions on it - it was the SWP that pulled out of those talks.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Fisher I can't actually see Oliur Rahman standing against Galloway or Respect (unrenewed) standing against Respect Renewal just as Respect would generally avoid standing against the Socialist Party.
> 
> But I just don't see how you can talk of Respect splitting cleanly into two organisations - the organisation is not split down the middle into two clear polarised factions.
> 
> ...



Yes I think that's true.  I welcome the SWP in Respect - they just shouldn't run the show and should allow others to put their point of view without screaming "witch hunt".  

However when it comes to elections, as my post describes, the SWP on their own have no rights to the name and will have to negotiate sooner or later - something they are not very good at, to understate the obvious.


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> ... and you also hardly ever see SWP posters (or any lefty posters) about (Mark Steel makes this point). I think this is partly their ever diminishing membership and partly because they had to sell off their print shop.




A good point. Last time I was in the UK a coupla years ago I didn't see a single SW poster (and I wandered around several big cities)


----------



## nwnm (Nov 16, 2007)

*latest news from the 'officials'*

"Dear comrade,

You may have recently received an e-mail from 'Respect Renewal' which claimed 'this is what Respect can look like' - it then directed you to clips from a Respect meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately those who sent the e-mail didn't make it clear that two of the people on the Manchester platform - Preston councillor Michael Lavalette and victimised trade unionist Karen Reissmann - are effectively banned from George Galloway's new organisation for being members of the SWP.

Both Michael and Karen want to let it be known that they will both be at the Respect annual conference this Saturday with other delegates from across the country. They urge all those committed to unity and establishing an active fighting alternative to New Labour to join them.

Michael said:

'Of course there are political differences and debates within Respect - but the place to sort them out is at national conference - this is how all labour movement?and trade union organisations sort out their differences. I'm looking forward to Saturday and then to moving on with our real business of fighting to establish the alternative to Brown's Labour government.'"


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> A good point. Last time I was in the UK a coupla years ago I didn't see a single SW poster (and I wandered around several big cities)



Therre has been a crackdown on flyposterng particularly from LibDem councils.
For example, where I live up until 2004 (when LibDems took over council) we used to flyposter freely and excessively, now you put up posters and the council harrasses the venue and threatens them with prosecution, in one case I got called by the media because the leader of the council had denounced my local environmental group.

Bristol Council took the UK Stop the War to court over flypostering. Andrew Murray had to come down from London to stand in the dock.

Swansea Council contacted the National Office of the SP and threatened them with prosecution over local SP flypostering in Swansea.

etc.


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Therre has been a crackdown on flyposterng particularly from LibDem councils.
> For example, where I live up until 2004 (when LibDems took over council) we used to flyposter freely and excessively, now you put up posters and the council harrasses the venue and threatens them with prosecution, in one case I got called by the media because the leader of the council had denounced my local environmental group.
> 
> Bristol Council took the UK Stop the War to court over flypostering. Andrew Murray had to come down from London to stand in the dock.
> ...




Ahh, okay.


----------



## JHE (Nov 16, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Birmingham Ladywood by election 18th August 1977
> .
> John Sever 	Labour 	8,227
> Quentin Davies 	Conservative 	4,402
> ...



It was in 1977 that the International Socialists declared themselves the Social Workers *Party*.

The IMG's Socialist Unity initiative picked up some support.  Big Flame joined and I think they picked up some odds and sods too, but the Social Workers didn't join.  They had just convinced themselves that they were The Party. (Indeed, they still talk of themselves in that way).  If you are The Party, why would you be interested in an odd little alliance with a couple of tiny groups that you refer to as "sectarians".  Surely the "sectarians" should apply to join the The Party.

O Vanity, thy name is Trot!


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Dear comrade,
> 
> You may have recently received an e-mail from 'Respect Renewal' which claimed 'this is what Respect can look like' - it then directed you to clips from a Respect meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately those who sent the e-mail didn't make it clear that two of the people on the Manchester platform - Preston councillor Michael Lavalette and victimised trade unionist Karen Reissmann - are effectively banned from George Galloway's new organisation for being members of the SWP.
> 
> ...



Yes, but what do you think about the questions posed to you many times above? I don't you'll find many here chearleading Galloway.


----------



## laptop (Nov 16, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The CC said:
> 
> 
> 
> > branches like Preston ... have become vibrant because they have recruited young people and key activists out of the movement.  There is no secret formula: the branches have fought hard to win people to our ideas and have created a culture of recruitment in their branches.



Can anyone name the particular computer program that generated that prose?


----------



## nwnm (Nov 16, 2007)

Respect conference full to overflowing
15/11/2007
There are now so many delegates and observers registered for the Respect conference that we have had to turn over 70 people away. So if you are a delegate or an observer please confirm with the National Office that you are properly registered for the conference. 

If for some reason you are unable to come please also let us know so that people on the reserve list can be informed in good time.

New guest speakers Francois Duval of the LCR in France, Ihtisham Hibutallah of the British Muslim Intiative, Karen Reissmann victimised NHS nurse and Derek Wall of the Green Party will now be joining Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Andrew Murray, Chair of the Stop the War Coalition, Jane Loftus, President of the CWU (pc), and Sami Ramadani of Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation to address the conference.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1642


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> It was in 1977 that the International Socialists declared themselves the Social Workers *Party*.
> 
> The IMG's Socialist Unity initiative picked up some support.  Big Flame joined and I think they picked up some odds and sods too, but the Social Workers didn't join.  They had just convinced themselves that they were The Party (indeed, they still talk of themselves in that way).  If you are The Party, why would you be interested in an odd little alliance with a couple of tiny groups that you refer to as "sectarians".  Surely the "sectarians" should apply to join the The Party.
> 
> O Vanity, thy name is Trot!




To be fair though, The Party are apprently too disorganised to get their activists to an internet cafe, so sorting out complicated stuff like this, well...


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Respect conference full to overflowing
> 15/11/2007
> There are now so many delegates and observers registered for the Respect conference that we have had to turn over 70 people away. So if you are a delegate or an observer please confirm with the National Office that you are properly registered for the conference.
> 
> ...



Now this is VERY interesting...

either 

a) Nwnm is right, and its gonna be "brilliant"

b) they've booked a venure that's too small...surely you'd know how many delegates you have?

or c) they're worried about who might turn up, and want a stricter control on who gets in.


----------



## the button (Nov 16, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Can anyone name the particular computer program that generated that prose?


Bollocks for Windows?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 16, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Now this is VERY interesting...
> 
> either
> 
> ...



They've kept the original booking for Respect conference, made before the row or the split. When that hall was booked, the expected attendance would probably have been the 300 to 400 who showed up last year. As I said in cockneyrebel's sweepstakes thread I doubt if you could shoehorn more than 500 or 600 into the place and maybe quite a bit less, which an SWP national mobilisation should certainly be able to account for.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Bollocks for Windows?



1917 version


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 16, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Dear comrade,
> 
> You may have recently received an e-mail from 'Respect Renewal' which claimed 'this is what Respect can look like' - it then directed you to clips from a Respect meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately those who sent the e-mail didn't make it clear that two of the people on the Manchester platform - Preston councillor Michael Lavalette and victimised trade unionist Karen Reissmann - are effectively banned from George Galloway's new organisation for being members of the SWP.
> 
> ...



The two people 'effectively banned' from Respect Renewal were so effectively banned that they were able to share a platfrom with some of Renewal's leading lights (including the newly discovered devil incarnate himself GG). All this missive does is reaffirm that as far as the authors (unnamed by nwnm) are concerned there is a split and there are sides to be taken; it is a warning to possible faint hearts not to go looking for reconciliation lest they are lost to the real cause...so its as you were then.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Nov 16, 2007)

Yet another removal of democratic systems, people have been fly postering since roman times, ironic that it is in the 'age of democracy' that such activities are being banned. Its Ok for the big political parties to hire giant advertising hoardings though.




> Therre has been a crackdown on flyposterng particularly from LibDem councils.
> For example, where I live up until 2004 (when LibDems took over council) we used to flyposter freely and excessively, now you put up posters and the council harrasses the venue and threatens them with prosecution, in one case I got called by the media because the leader of the council had denounced my local environmental group.


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

though tbh.

a) Revolutionaries shouldn't be that arsed about a ban on flyposting should they?

b) why oh why did they use to put up whole banks of the same poster in the same place? It only needed a couple in strategic places to get the message across...


----------



## laptop (Nov 16, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> 1917 version





"Sorry, we cannot save your bollocks because the Winter Palace is not open."


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> "Sorry, we cannot save your bollocks because the Winter Palace is not open."


----------



## JimPage (Nov 16, 2007)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> Will there now be two separate Respect parties, possibly contesting the same elections?



No- there will be Respect. Galloways mob will have to choose a different name. There are pretty tight rules set down by the Electoral Autorities on what you can label yourself as at election time- and and new party name cant be very similar to another one. The Socialist Party cant call themselves Socialist Party at elections, for example

My guess would be for Galloways mob to continue as "Unity"


----------



## JimPage (Nov 16, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Linda Smith is the nominations officer with the Electoral Commission.  Unless that is overturned, no candidate who stands as 'Respect' can do so without her endorsement.  If after the conference the SWP try to challenge that with the Electoral Commission, Linda will simply claim the 'conference' had no democratic legitimacy.  The only people who will gain from that are the lawyers and, no doubt, the courts will have to rule on whether the 12 delegates from SOAS Student Respect representing less than ten paid up members are legitimate or not.



Here i can agree with you. I am sure several lefty firms of lawyers in London are licking their lips and clearing their diaries for the opportunity to resolve this issue. However- it needs resolving before next April- when the nominations for the Mya 2008 elections are due in- otherwise no one is standing as Respect.....


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Can anyone name the particular computer program that generated that prose?



It's a variation on this - http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> Here i can agree with you. I am sure several lefty firms of lawyers in London are licking their lips and clearing their diaries for the opportunity to resolve this issue. However- it needs resolving before next April- when the nominations for the Mya 2008 elections are due in- otherwise no one is standing as Respect.....



This was to be part of the meeting on Wednesday 31 October.  The SWP pulled out unilaterally following their press conference of the councillors who resigned the whip on Monday 29 October that launched the public split.



> "The chair summed up where we had reached. “We agree that both sides are separating. That neither side will speak out as the pre-October respect. That the name to be used by each side will be Respect with a qualifier.”
> 
> John Rees said that if we come to an agreement then there would be no need for a conference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 16, 2007)

wrt Fisher_Gate - You forgot to include the recent exodus of members from Preston we have suffered as a result of folk upping sticks for Uni - we _had_ 8 recruits to the SWP last year, all students and of whom 6 were in the SWP. That on top of the three longstanding SWP members (2 from Preston) we have recently lost that makes a total of 11 active SWP members living in Preston last year, out of a total of 19 active in Preston.

Then you have to factor in two more we recruited and lost recently, but who were responsible for setting up the Respect society at Uclan. And what about the two SWP members who are active in other districts but not Preston? You wanna add that all up it's 23 active members of whom 15 are from Preston.

In all, I think this bollocks about geographical location is irrelevent. I consider myself Preston SWP because that's effectively what I am. I'll give you a brutally honest picture of what it looks like from here. We've had a very bad year in terms of people moving accross the country.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

So you held onto how many? Over one year? And how active were they within that year? And over-reliant on students much?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

...and on top of that, it's students and a lecturer recruiting students. What does that say?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> though tbh.
> 
> a) Revolutionaries shouldn't be that arsed about a ban on flyposting should they?



I don't think they are - afterall they've done it for years despite it being "illegal", but it's a problem when you are holding meeting/event in Cafe, Pub or Community Centre and the council is harrassing the venue owners (who probably aren't revolutionaries!). Most petit bourgeois can't take the hassle and won't let you hire their venue if you continue.

. in my experience in my loacle flypostering has become harder in the last 2-3 years mainly since the LibDems took over the council (flypostering is one of their obsessions). They also send people around to tear them down on a mroe regular basis.

Flypostering remains one of the best forms of advertising I think.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

Re. FisherGate's post.

I think it would have been bad if the "leaders" had negotiated a split/divorce with no consultation of the members while perfectly natural that these people have negotiations prior to a conference. Also after that meeting the majority of Respect branches put forward motions opposing the organisation dividing.

I personally think this split is a disaster!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> wrt Fisher_Gate - You forgot to include the recent exodus of members from Preston we have suffered as a result of folk upping sticks for Uni - we _had_ 8 recruits to the SWP last year, all students and of whom 6 were in the SWP. That on top of the three longstanding SWP members (2 from Preston) we have recently lost that makes a total of 11 active SWP members living in Preston last year, out of a total of 19 active in Preston.
> 
> Then you have to factor in two more we recruited and lost recently, but who were responsible for setting up the Respect society at Uclan. And what about the two SWP members who are active in other districts but not Preston? You wanna add that all up it's 23 active members of whom 15 are from Preston.
> 
> In all, I think this bollocks about geographical location is irrelevent. I consider myself Preston SWP because that's effectively what I am. I'll give you a brutally honest picture of what it looks like from here. We've had a very bad year in terms of people moving accross the country.



Yes I guessed this was so.  The SWP have not recruited anyone from the wider labour movement in Preston for a couple of years, despite having a councillor and a full timer.  The full timer has concentrated on recruiting college school and uni students, rather than relate to the Labour movement.

Will the members who have moved to Uni be counted as members in Preston or at their Uni branch for delegate entitlement to the 'conference'?  Or is it just possible they might be counted twice?


----------



## nwnm (Nov 16, 2007)

RE - Udo Erasmus post:
fishers gate doesn't cause him and his chums will feel larger fish <or respect renewal 'supporter' in his case> in a very small puddle


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Re. FisherGate's post.
> 
> I think it would have been bad if the "leaders" had negotiated a split/divorce with no consultation of the members while perfectly natural that these people have negotiations prior to a conference. Also after that meeting the majority of Respect branches put forward motions opposing the organisation dividing.
> 
> I personally think this split is a disaster!



No one was attempting to drive the SWP out - that was all in the increasingly paranoid minds of the SWP.  I agree that the split has the elements of a disaster - once the SWP had made up their minds that they could not work on a broad basis with others, the purpose of the negotiations were damage limitation and to at least be on civil terms in the divorce.  The SWP have now gone for 'scorched earth'.  We have to pick up the pieces as best as we can and get on with the job of building a broad left of labour party.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> once the SWP had made up their minds that they could not work on a broad basis with others,



Genuine question. Did you think they ever could or would? Long term. Or did you think you had to suck it to see sort of thing so that you could be right. Or did you genuinely think that experience of a broader coalition might somehow feed back into the SWP and later the basis that way? Or somethig entirely different? Because, it's quote evident that you've been around a long time and aren't totally naive.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 16, 2007)

Ye Gads, what's with all the student hating? Unfortunately (what with the decline of the Unions and general organised Labour and all) it is much harder to recruit people from the 'Labour Movement' - who by and large haven't even been renewing their _OWN_ membership of anyone under the age of fifty in the past 20 years! Through Respect we've been working in close cahoots with at least 7 prominent Trade Unionists from the Trades Council, PCS and FBU - but to expect any of them to run up and join the SWP without a fuck of a lot of ideological courting would be unbelievably stupid. I'm talking years - these are people who've gone through one end of the tunnel of political activism and are quickly approaching the end as it is. I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join. Yes we recruit students, so what? Our most recent member is 19 and _not_ a student. I'm a student but I don't think that somehow _doesn't count_. How the fuck are the demographics of the IMG doing for students, or anybody Fisher you twat? Not very well, eh? Sort out your own issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Madness. Ordinary people -like what you're supposed to be appealing to in encreasing numbers aren't stalinists, nor are normal trade unionists.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 16, 2007)

You twat. Friggin'_Gimp accused us of not recruiting from layers of the _Labour_ movement. Unless you have absolutely zero experience with the actually politicised and active socialist Trade Unionists (who exist in ever dwindling numbers under the age of 40) which I'm sure you don't - you can't possibly claim that there aren't _massive_ links between them and the old CPGB, or that the vast majority haven't flirted with the Soviet Union in the past.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2007)

1) calling people twats is not enough to  make an effective debating strategy!

2) are you really saying that anyone with any degree of political experience is automatically non-recruitable?  What does that say about the SWP's reputation?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 16, 2007)

No, I'm not - I'm just saying that a fuckuvalot of people who were _specifically_ experienced in 1960s-70s Trade Union activism have an awful lot emotionally tied up in the Labour Party, and lost an awful lot when the Berlin Wall fell.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2007)

that is probably true - but it doesn't explain why your Respect branch has found that - with few exceptions - it has only managed to recruit students.

What about workers aged 18-30, ie. who had no illusions in the eastern bloc because they weren't old enough?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

In my own Respect branch we include a former Plaid Cymru councillor, an ex-communist party member, the Vice-Chair of PCS Wales, the publicity officer for Cardiff UNISON, three union branch secretaries and have recruited a few young union reps who are below 30 + students, unemployed, artists, musicians, visionaries, revolutionaries and school students.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> artists, musicians, visionaries, revolutionaries and school students.



but no workers?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 16, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> but no workers?



You missed the reference to Union workplace reps! Our branch is probably made up predominantly of workers, we were starting to get our student wing up to scratch when the leaders of Respect nationally threw the toys out of the pram


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You twat. Friggin'_Gimp accused us of not recruiting from layers of the _Labour_ movement. Unless you have absolutely zero experience with the actually politicised and active socialist Trade Unionists (who exist in ever dwindling numbers under the age of 40) which I'm sure you don't - you can't possibly claim that there aren't _massive_ links between them and the old CPGB, or that the vast majority haven't flirted with the Soviet Union in the past.



The 'labour movement' doesn't mean the bureaucracy you spolit child (despite the SWPs attempts at rubbing up to the Morning Star). 

So, what you realy mean is that you don't appeal to any union members at all - stalinist or otherwise other than the NUS - that you don't in fact appeal to anyone other than students. And this is the model ward. Now that Jerry Hicks has been dissapeared anyway. Great stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> No, I'm not - I'm just saying that a fuckuvalot of people who were _specifically_ experienced in 1960s-70s Trade Union activism have an awful lot emotionally tied up in the Labour Party, and lost an awful lot when the Berlin Wall fell.



...and that you're unable to recruit _from anyone else_. Despite having a councillor and a SWP full timer in the area. It's like a viz comic of what left-wing politics entails - and it appears to be entirely true. Are there any working class people in preston? Why haven't you made any membershi inroads via this perfect model?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> In my own Respect branch we include a former Plaid Cymru councillor, an ex-communist party member, the Vice-Chair of PCS Wales, the publicity officer for Cardiff UNISON, three union branch secretaries and have recruited a few young union reps who are below 30 + students, unemployed, artists, musicians, visionaries, revolutionaries and school students.



Exactly - you're fucked.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Ye Gads, what's with all the student hating? Unfortunately (what with the decline of the Unions and general organised Labour and all) it is much harder to recruit people from the 'Labour Movement' - who by and large haven't even been renewing their _OWN_ membership of anyone under the age of fifty in the past 20 years! Through Respect we've been working in close cahoots with at least 7 prominent Trade Unionists from the Trades Council, PCS and FBU - but to expect any of them to run up and join the SWP without a fuck of a lot of ideological courting would be unbelievably stupid. I'm talking years - these are people who've gone through one end of the tunnel of political activism and are quickly approaching the end as it is. I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join. Yes we recruit students, so what? Our most recent member is 19 and _not_ a student. I'm a student but I don't think that somehow _doesn't count_. How the fuck are the demographics of the IMG doing for students, or anybody Fisher you twat? Not very well, eh? Sort out your own issues.




Oh dear.  I think it's past your bed time.


----------



## JHE (Nov 16, 2007)

The split was reported this evening on Newsnight, on the eve of the conferences.  It was a fair report, I thought, though (rightly) a bit mocking.  Interviewees shown on the report included Oliur Rahman, the Tower Hamladesh councillor who has been threatened and attacked for resigning from the al-Respeq council group, John Rees telling us that no individual, not even GG, is bigger than "the movement", Nick Wrack and Ken Loach,  explaining that the split had come about because one "disciplined" group (i.e., the Social Workers) had not been willing to implement agreed reforms of al-Respeq and had insisted on being in charge.


----------



## cutandsplice (Nov 16, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Ye Gads, what's with all the student hating? Unfortunately (what with the decline of the Unions and general organised Labour and all) it is much harder to recruit people from the 'Labour Movement' - who by and large haven't even been renewing their _OWN_ membership of anyone under the age of fifty in the past 20 years! Through Respect we've been working in close cahoots with at least 7 prominent Trade Unionists from the Trades Council, PCS and FBU - but to expect any of them to run up and join the SWP without a fuck of a lot of ideological courting would be unbelievably stupid. I'm talking years - these are people who've gone through one end of the tunnel of political activism and are quickly approaching the end as it is. I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join. Yes we recruit students, so what? Our most recent member is 19 and _not_ a student. I'm a student but I don't think that somehow _doesn't count_. How the fuck are the demographics of the IMG doing for students, or anybody Fisher you twat? Not very well, eh? Sort out your own issues.


Nurse, the screens...


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 16, 2007)

crick report on newsnight at long last the much awaited galloway public attack on the swp,,, but what is this? no galloway?? no instead there is some goateed trot "crossing the class line and taking our movements arguments into the bourgeoius press"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

**sorry, missed the posts above the one above**


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 16, 2007)

just remebering the reaction from some on here when fisher was interviewed by crick a short while ago. I wonder If these same people will be condemning rees.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 16, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> **sorry, missed the posts above the one above**


 (((butchers)))


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2007)

Give us a kiss barney


----------



## JimPage (Nov 17, 2007)

Well, todays the day. May sanity reign at all of the events- may people take stock of the train crash of the last few weeks and come to their senses.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 17, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...and that you're unable to recruit _from anyone else_. Despite having a councillor and a SWP full timer in the area. It's like a viz comic of what left-wing politics entails - and it appears to be entirely true. Are there any working class people in preston? Why haven't you made any membershi inroads via this perfect model?



Err, I know it's no use trying to get _you_ to comprehend simple discussion, but for all those who may have had their perception of this argument skewed by your irrelevant comments, Fisher_Gate actually accused us beforehand of not recruiting from the _LABOUR MOVEMENT_, which I (rather brilliantly I might add) claimed was overwhelmingly over 40 and emotionally tied up in Labour and post-Soviet Union politics. This you simply deny - which I again will use as evidence you have zero experience with the 'Labour Movement' today.

And as for why the SWP isn't recruiting hundreds of thousands of millions of radicalised workers, well - are you seriously stupid enough not to come up with your own reasons (apart from your non-arguments about the SWP only appealing to students) - like the general demise of the Labour movement and the collapse of Socialism as a mainstream ideology amongst the working classes? Of course you are. Douchebag, anyone?

And no-one's fucking told me why it's so fucking bad to be recruiting students either? I'm guessing it's just because you're all anti-Enlightenment Proley populists. Fair do's - just don't try and pass yourselves off as serious Marxists in future. Marxism isn't just about recruiting workers at all costs: There's nothing at all anti-academic about Marxism - how many worker's were there in the original Bolshevik minority faction? The point of the vanguard is to be there when things _do_ start to happen.

In all, there is currently no serious revolutionary current to speak of running through any vein of British society - be it in popular culture, working class organisation, youth sub-cultures or anything else you'd like to name. Why on earth would _anybody_ be recruiting millions of worker's in this period? _Are they_? If not, how come the SWP is getting Flak for being successful in recruiting at least a certain section of society? Oh yeah, it's because you're all wankers. Sorry, I forget who I'm talking to sometimes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2007)

And the _LABOUR MOVEMENT_ is not full of stalinists and USSR supporters. Don't be so daft. And don't now try and smuggle in 'labour supporting' now that you've realised just how daft your original characterisation was. Even this attempt at a get-out only helps to show how poor your performance is though - an initiative aimed specifically at people who have traditionally supported labour but might now be open to  a more broad-left perspective has recruited _no one_ from this 'layer' - and this in the model ward. 

The only people that you've recruited are students - that's what your 'brutally' honest post says. It actually says a lot more then that, but you're unable to see it or too tied up in desperate defensive group-thought to see that right now or entertain the failings that this highlights but which are transparently clear to everyrone else.

Your argument as to why you've been unable to recruit a single person aside from a handlful of students is not really up to much, and directly contradicts the CC's version of events in what they argue is a model ward, a beacon to the left, an example of how well we all could do if only we adopted the same approach. 6 students. Brilliant. No ones asked you to recruit millions. One maybe. As a start like.

I'll not mention the perspective that the SWP adopted in their arguments for building RESPECT - a unique historic opportunity to break the w/c from Labour blah blah - all now overturned and morphed into - 'of course we can't recruit or retain anyone, it would be madness to think that we could'. Marvelous stuff. 

And how desperate you must be to play this state of affairs, a state of affairs that you've made, as an anti-student position. The idiocy of arguinhg that any criticism of a model ward that can only recruit students is anti-student witchunting - great stuff. Absolute nonsense, but it does show that you're prepared to ape the CC during this _troubling period_. Hope you enjoy the next few months internal HUAC sessions.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 17, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Err, I know it's no use trying to get _you_ to comprehend simple discussion, but for all those who may have had their perception of this argument skewed by your irrelevant comments, Fisher_Gate actually accused us beforehand of not recruiting from the _LABOUR MOVEMENT_, which I (rather brilliantly I might add) claimed was overwhelmingly over 40 and emotionally tied up in Labour and post-Soviet Union politics. This you simply deny - which I again will use as evidence you have zero experience with the 'Labour Movement' today.
> 
> And as for why the SWP isn't recruiting hundreds of thousands of millions of radicalised workers, well - are you seriously stupid enough not to come up with your own reasons (apart from your non-arguments about the SWP only appealing to students) - like the general demise of the Labour movement and the collapse of Socialism as a mainstream ideology amongst the working classes? Of course you are. Douchebag, anyone?
> 
> ...



On seeing misinformed outbursts like this, I recommend reaching for the classics.  Try this one for measure:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1910/xx/intell.htm
(remember though when it was written "Social Democracy" meant revolutionary marxism).

Even the mistaken notion of student "red bases" in the sixties was better than this load of apolitical drivel.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2007)

Oh yeah, forgot to say _Death to the Aufklarung!_


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 17, 2007)

What the fuck would you refer to as the 'Labour Movement' today butch-boy? Where the fuck _is_ it? What are _your_ suggestions as to how we 'recruit from it'? Go get fucked; what my post actually says is that we actually _do_ have one new non-student member, if you read it properly - but as far as I'm concerned that's irrelevant to the extreme. What the fuck makes having 'some workers' in the party so fantastically brilliant? Fuck all, if they're shit!

As for smartarse; well done on returning to your general bullshitting tactic - when you can't beat 'em, patronise 'em! I'll have you know I've already read the pamphlet you referred to, and probably more than you have done yourself. I'll also point out how ludicrously irrelevant it is, and how blatantly obvious it is you've picked it out simply because it addresses a parralel issue to the one we're discussing; where did I say the socialist movement should rely upon the 'intelligentsia' and not the workers? Am I saying that the focus of the revolutionary party should be to win the intelligentsia to socialism? No! I'm not! And your pathetic excuse for an argument is rather embarrassing for anyone who has the patience to take it to pieces and analyse it properly. What I've actually said is that there is nothing un-academic about Marxism, that if we're to take the example of the Bolshevik faction in Russia the founding aim wasn't simply to create a party which was more popular with the workers, it was to create a party which was _actually_ striving towards socialism proper. Indeed, in Trotsky's pamphlet you linked to, Trotsky says nothing about the negative effects of having a student-based organisation or movement (though they are negative) but talks completely of the practical class-based issues which prevent such a movement from being. Retard. Go grow a brain and learn to distinguish between recognising familiar words in text and analysing their meaning, then perhaps you'll be able to link your argument into 'smarter people than yourself's' work accurately.


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 17, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> What the fuck would you refer to as the 'Labour Movement' today butch-boy? Where the fuck _is_ it? What are _your_ suggestions as to how we 'recruit from it'? Go get fucked; what my post actually says is that we actually _do_ have one new non-student member, if you read it properly - but as far as I'm concerned that's irrelevant to the extreme. What the fuck makes having 'some workers' in the party so fantastically brilliant? Fuck all, if they're shit!
> 
> As for smartarse; well done on returning to your general bullshitting tactic - when you can't beat 'em, patronise 'em! I'll have you know I've already read the pamphlet you referred to, and probably more than you have done yourself. I'll also point out how ludicrously irrelevant it is, and how blatantly obvious it is you've picked it out simply because it addresses a parralel issue to the one we're discussing; where did I say the socialist movement should rely upon the 'intelligentsia' and not the workers? Am I saying that the focus of the revolutionary party should be to win the intelligentsia to socialism? No! I'm not! And your pathetic excuse for an argument is rather embarrassing for anyone who has the patience to take it to pieces and analyse it properly. What I've actually said is that there is nothing un-academic about Marxism, that if we're to take the example of the Bolshevik faction in Russia the founding aim wasn't simply to create a party which was more popular with the workers, it was to create a party which was _actually_ striving towards socialism proper. Indeed, in Trotsky's pamphlet you linked to, Trotsky says nothing about the negative effects of having a student-based organisation or movement (though they are negative) but talks completely of the practical class-based issues which prevent such a movement from being. Retard. Go grow a brain and learn to distinguish between recognising familiar words in text and analysing their meaning, then perhaps you'll be able to link your argument into 'smarter people than yourself's' work accurately.



I don't think there's anything to be gained from general insult-'go get fucked!', 'your pathetic excuse', 'go grow a brain,' etc.

However, if das uberdog is claiming that the labour movement is extremely weak s/he's got a point- however, it is not accurate to say there is no labour movement worth relating to at all.  There is an extremly fragile and weak labour movement- for example trades councils or rank and file initiatives- it is not entirely true to say they're all old- or past it.  It is true to say they are very small- Bolton gets between 10 and 20- mainly in forties and fifteis some like mysefl in 30s.  Similar in Manchester.  A recent rank and file teachers meeting had about 20 people at it- still mainly over 30 but a couple younger.

It is an extremly fragile base from which to build but it is still very important to nurture these networks, relate them to emerging and important struggles such as the mental health workers' strike and not necessarily see them as only useful for recruiting.  It is essential work to begin to rebuild the working class organisation and capacity to fight.  None of this is counterposed to recruiting younger people- both to united front struggles and to political organisations- in workplaces, colleges, universities.  However, it is fairly key to at least attempt to have an implantation amongst th eorganised working class however much we recognise the need to rebuild rank and file networks of militants.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 17, 2007)

urbanrevolt said:
			
		

> I don't think there's anything to be gained from general insult-'go get fucked!', 'your pathetic excuse', 'go grow a brain,' etc.
> 
> However, if das uberdog is claiming that the labour movement is extremely weak s/he's got a point- however, it is not accurate to say there is no labour movement worth relating to at all.  There is an extremly fragile and weak labour movement- for example trades councils or rank and file initiatives- it is not entirely true to say they're all old- or past it.  It is true to say they are very small- Bolton gets between 10 and 20- mainly in forties and fifteis some like mysefl in 30s.  Similar in Manchester.  A recent rank and file teachers meeting had about 20 people at it- still mainly over 30 but a couple younger.
> 
> It is an extremly fragile base from which to build but it is still very important to nurture these networks, relate them to emerging and important struggles such as the mental health workers' strike and not necessarily see them as only useful for recruiting.  It is essential work to begin to rebuild the working class organisation and capacity to fight.  None of this is counterposed to recruiting younger people- both to united front struggles and to political organisations- in workplaces, colleges, universities.  However, it is fairly key to at least attempt to have an implantation amongst th eorganised working class however much we recognise the need to rebuild rank and file networks of militants.



while i do not entirely disagree with what you say,   is not maybe the problem the alienated way of differrentiating between party and class and between cadre and non cadre and particularly also of recruiting to a programme instead of trying to create networks based on a whole series of issues instead of those that dogma decrees? ( sorry off topic )


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 17, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> What the fuck would look at me look at me look at me look at me look at me look at melook at me look at melook at me look at me look at me look at me look at me look at melook at me look at me look at melook at me look at me look at mellook at me look at me look at meook at me accurately.


 have you ever considered shutting yer mouth and giving your arse a chance?


----------



## cutandsplice (Nov 17, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> have you ever considered shutting yer mouth and giving your arse a chance?


Probably not.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 17, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And the _LABOUR MOVEMENT_ is not full of stalinists and USSR supporters. Don't be so daft. And don't now try and smuggle in 'labour supporting' now that you've realised just how daft your original characterisation was. Even this attempt at a get-out only helps to show how poor your performance is though - an initiative aimed specifically at people who have traditionally supported labour but might now be open to  a more broad-left perspective has recruited _no one_ from this 'layer' - and this in the model ward.
> 
> The only people that you've recruited are students - that's what your 'brutally' honest post says. It actually says a lot more then that, but you're unable to see it or too tied up in desperate defensive group-thought to see that right now or entertain the failings that this highlights but which are transparently clear to everyrone else.
> 
> ...


that was a long post Butch


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 17, 2007)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> Probably not.



I'm not sure what that means - I _don't_ talk out of my arse? I mean, I know I don't - but for God's sake get your insults straight man!


----------



## treelover (Nov 17, 2007)

don't usually use silly words like this, but DU comprehensively Pwned by BA


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 17, 2007)

Let's break this down into manageable chunks, treeluvva.

The only point of contention here is over whether or not the 'Labour Movement' is dominated by post-Stalinists and Old Labourites. The 'Labour Movement' has yet to be defined;- butchers claims that it isn't dominated by said bunch, I've said it is. You're free to have an opinion on this but it's hardly pwnage material.

This dispute came from the point that butchers made, that it is horrendously bad for a Revvo Party not to be recruiting the 'Leaders' of the 'Labour Movement (as yet undefined) left, right and centre. I argued against this, and Fisher_Gate frankly embarrassed himself with his poor use of Trotsky in an attempt to claim that there was something innately unrevolutionary about a Party which recruited from the 'intelligentsia'.

Now I'm sorry to have to humiliate you publically by trying to extend your obviously linear understanding of this discussion, but it would appear that the major point of contention is still an issue and yet to be resolved! I know, I know - you were going to side with butchers whatever the hell happened. I mean, I am in the SWP after all! But tbh, in future I think you should remain quiet about your views in future... I mean, unless you've fully thought them through. It's... embarassing for me to have to do this.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 17, 2007)

> It's... embarassing for me to have to do this.



It is. But probably not for the reasons you're thinking.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> This dispute came from the point that butchers made, that it is horrendously bad for a Revvo Party not to be recruiting the 'Leaders' of the 'Labour Movement (as yet undefined) left, right and centre. I argued against this, and Fisher_Gate frankly embarrassed himself with his poor use of Trotsky in an attempt to claim that there was something innately unrevolutionary about a Party which recruited from the 'intelligentsia'.



And this where the essential dishonesty of hooverbag kicks in again. I didn't mention 'leaders', i didn't specify leaders, I, in fact, said the exact opposite - normal members, not 'leaders'. And how many have you managed to get? None. In the model ward. None. Great stuff. I wonder why, when you see the above series of posts.


----------



## Timbo (Nov 18, 2007)

Ok I've been reading this thread since it started with a mixture of bemusement and interest since it started. 

Just one question for any SWP members really. What lessons have the SWP learnt from this saga? Will they re evaluate at the way they operate or organise as a result of all this? Or it will be a case as business as usual?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 18, 2007)

Well, Ok - 'active people' then. Argument still stands.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2007)

Timbo said:
			
		

> Ok I've been reading this thread since it started with a mixture of bemusement and interest since it started.
> 
> Just one question for any SWP members really. What lessons have the SWP learnt from this saga? Will they re evaluate at the way they operate or organise as a result of all this? Or it will be a case as business as usual?


what do u think they should learn?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Nov 18, 2007)

I've been following this thread and if it wasn't so sad that the main left organisations and their supporters are splitting like amoeba and turning more against each other it would be pure comedy.  All this whilst the bnp can afford the finances and the manpower to put up 800 odd council candidates and have 50 councilors.  

While ordinary people have their livelihoods taken away from them by outsourcing and cheap labour and removal and privatisation of serivces the main left orgs continue to indulge in pointless intellectual wanking of the worst kind.

If we end up with more fash as councillors or as MP's the blame would have to be shared by the mainstream polticians and thei business chums who benefit from cheap labour and outsourcing and the disgusting activities of what passes for the left in this country.

There is now NO genunie grass roots left (in the broadest sense) active in this country it is all intellectuall wanking that has no relevance to the man on the street.   No wonder people vote bnp as at least they are giving the appearance of being on their side. 

I don't think you could have a cable street style confrontation now as the backing in terms of those prepared to put themselves in the fireing line wouldn't be there.  Sadly a modern day Mosley would have much more support than in the past.


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 18, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> while i do not entirely disagree with what you say,   is not maybe the problem the alienated way of differrentiating between party and class and between cadre and non cadre and particularly also of recruiting to a programme instead of trying to create networks based on a whole series of issues instead of those that dogma decrees? ( sorry off topic )



It may be part of the problem.  (And btw I don't think this is nearly as off topic as most of the recent contributions  )

We should create networks of militants over a whole series of issues- repsonding to working class  needs as much as looking for issues- though I also think some issues are definitely worth fighting over- issues around freedom, equality, the right to organise etc.  We should also definitely be for creating links and networks between the issues- e.g. rank and file networoks in and across the unions to take up all sorts of issues not just job related ones- e.g. strikes over pay and conditins yes but also international solidarity, homophobia, racism.

In other word, I agree we should respond to stuggles but also I think should take up issues according to our beliefs about what's right (what you might call 'dogma' but I think if socialists are open to discussion, genuinely open minded and prepared to listen as well then it's not dogma)

Also there's nothing worng with trying to recruit to a revolutinary organisation/ group/ party but it should be seen as in addition to all the other activities.  In other words may be broach the subject on the lines we have a meeting about this we're socialists and if people ge tinto serious discussions mya be suggest why not become a member or supporter or write for us- but not to be obsessvie about it or undertake work to recruit (that's what puts a lot of people off th eleft and the SWP in particular I think and the way sometimes they can try to run campaigns for themselves- keeping contact lists etc- not always but I've known it more than once).  The party/ revolutoinary organisation should be a resource for th movement of working class emancipation not the other way round.

Keyboard jockey- I sympathise.  There are some prepared to put temselves in the firing line and that is necessary though much of the left including the SWP are quite mabivalen on no platform.  We also need though to get stuck into local campigns, build a working class base, be serious about politics and serious about confronting racist and facsit thugs like the bNP and the populist racism of the tabloids and the government from which they thrive.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> what do u think they should learn?



How about a revluation of the relationship between the CC and orodinary members for starters? Any lessons you think can be learnt from this fiasco? Surely there must be something?


----------



## Timbo (Nov 18, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> what do u think they should learn?




Ok.... seeing as you asked.

How about resisting in future the temptation to exagerate trends and membership figures? As many others have commented no one really believes the claimed figure of nearly 6000 members. Why are the membership so wildly exagerated - what purpose does it serve other than to give a false picture of the level of support the SWP has? As it begs the question , if they cant be relied on to give a truthful estimation of their membership what else are they fibbing or exagerating about? 

I think people would not be critical of the SWP, if Respect project had not been so hyped up in the first place. Its only a very short while that socialist Worker was making out that Respect had the potential to be a serious opposition around which the left could rally. Now to a casual observer that now looks open to question , to put it mildly. Maybe the SWP still thinks that is the case however. In which case as I asked earlier is it still a case of business as usual?     

Maybe the SWP could also try to learn that there is no short cut. My personal opinion is that the SWP saw Respect as an opportunity to get recruits on the back of the Iraq war protests, and therefore were more than happy to compromise on a number of areas as an acceptable price to pay for this. When this didnt happen (as it rarely does) , tensions rose in the SWP, which helped to  lead to the current spilt in Respect. 

Finally they could try and learn to work with what remains of the left in an open and pluralistic manner. Which means taking a long hard look at their organisational practices.

As others have said this whole episode would be funny were it not the fact that the longer the left cant get together and quarrel, all the while ordinary people who are disillusioned with new labour, and who are instinctively on the left have no political home to go, and public spilits like this just repel the majority of people. meanwhile the popular belief that currently the left couldnt agree on what to have for breakfast (to quote Zeppo in another thread) continue to be held by most people.


----------



## urbanrevolt (Nov 18, 2007)

I definitely think Timbo is right there are no short cuts and that we should work together in an open, democratic manner agreeing where we can and not forcing premature agreement where we can't but uniting in action.

By the way, I'm never quite sure what 'pluralistic' means.  I presume you mean relate to people from a wide range of points of view- recognising that we disagree on some things and can work together on others.  I agree with that but I think we should also be open about our political differences- not as a barrier to joint work but neither papering over the divisions and pretending they don't exist.


----------



## treelover (Nov 18, 2007)

Do you really believe that, KJ?
I get your point about Cable Street though, the numbers certainly wouldn't be the same.




> Sadly a modern day Mosley would have much more support than in the past.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2007)

Timbo said:
			
		

> Ok.... seeing as you asked.
> 
> How about resisting in future the temptation to exagerate trends and membership figures? As many others have commented no one really believes the claimed figure of nearly 6000 members. Why are the membership so wildly exagerated - what purpose does it serve other than to give a false picture of the level of support the SWP has? As it begs the question , if they cant be relied on to give a truthful estimation of their membership what else are they fibbing or exagerating about?


I agree with you, it does pose the question "what purpose does it serve"? I can perceive no Machiavellian benefit from this "deception".  However, it could be fact that on paper, the figure is true.  I know of at least half a dozen members (including myself) in my area who have not been active in socialist  worker for several years, who are still paying subscriptions and are officially members. This MAY go some way to explain the discrepancy between the number of members on paper, and a number of activists we can see.  Plus in my experience, socialist worker has always been very 'bad' at not writing people off.  Once somebody gets on the list as a member, it is pretty hard to get them off, until several dozen efforts have been made to ensure they are not just slipping between the cracks.  I doubt this can explain what appears to be a massive discrepancy, but once again I can see no logical explanation for deceiving oneself, which is really what they would be doing.
I would prefer not to publicise membership figures, as they will always bring about arguments with the left wing trainspotters, which are really a distraction.  It is quite easy to know whether a party is getting bigger or smaller, without being specific about the actual numbers.  This used to be the SW position.  It


> I think people would not be critical of the SWP, if Respect project had not been so hyped up in the first place. Its only a very short while that socialist Worker was making out that Respect had the potential to be a serious opposition around which the left could rally. Now to a casual observer that now looks open to question , to put it mildly. Maybe the SWP still thinks that is the case however. In which case as I asked earlier is it still a case of business as usual?


hmmmm, I'm probably not the best person to ask for several reasons, not least of which I have always remained undecided as to whether building a reformist coalition is the best activity for a revolutionary political party who is essentially think that there is no parliamentary road to socialism.  Though socialist worker have bent over backwards to strengthen the reformists within Respect to the point where many on the left have decided socialist worker is no longer a revolutionary party, I do not think comrades hearts are totally in to all the activities such a project demands.  Have to say my experience of the Socialist Alliance routine activity and working with SOME of the politicals in there was totally demoralising.  I cannot say I am surprised electionneering etc has decimated revolutionary membership.





> Maybe the SWP could also try to learn that there is no short cut. My personal opinion is that the SWP saw Respect as an opportunity to get recruits on the back of the Iraq war protests, and therefore were more than happy to compromise on a number of areas as an acceptable price to pay for this. When this didnt happen (as it rarely does) , tensions rose in the SWP, which helped to  lead to the current spilt in Respect.


 honestly mate, I wish this had been about recruitment, but completely the opposite is true.  Socialist Alliance and respect has cost SW membership.  In the long long term your viewpoint is correct, at the point of revolution, but Respect as in all other SW united fronts is a recognition that the vast majority of people who are needed to carry out a socialist revolution, are not socialist revolutionaries.  Essentially this is an attempt to:>



> Finally they could try and learn to work with what remains of the left in an open and pluralistic manner. Which means taking a long hard look at their organisational practices.
> 
> As others have said this whole episode would be funny were it not the fact that the longer the left cant get together and quarrel, all the while ordinary people who are disillusioned with new labour, and who are instinctively on the left have no political home to go, and public spilits like this just repel the majority of people. meanwhile the popular belief that currently the left couldnt agree on what to have for breakfast (to quote Zeppo in another thread) continue to be held by most people.


 respect and Socialist Alliance were a recognition of the fact there is no longer a reformist party for the reformist working class to vote for, and in the absence of the working class recreating his party themselves, socialist worker socialist revolutionaries have substituted themselves for the working class to this task.  However noble this could be painted, this  substitution I think is possibly the mistake.  If this substitution had acted as a primer pump and there were now about 20 or 30,000 members of respect as SW wanted, I don't think we would be facing the split.

There is a thread where Mark steel speaks about Socialist worker.  If he is right then it may have been far more productive for Socialist worker recruitment and otherwise to have just intervened in all these movements.' released in this scenario they would not have had the double burden of being revolutionary socialists, whilst substituting for the working class.

Will they learned from this?  Will I learn from this? I don't know whether I have the will or am capable to try and make sense of it all.  There are many many more factors than I have mentioned (it is not just SW who has got smaller).  On first impressions it looks like a step backwards.  However, it may make it easier to roll out the Preston model of building respect..I think I would personally prefer it, if SW would go back to intervening in movements that the working class created as a revolutionary socialists, in the fashion you described in your last paragraph, instead of attempting to substitute for the working class.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.


----------



## JHE (Nov 18, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> However, it may make it easier to roll out the Preston model of building respect..



That model being:-

 Bang the Islamo-Trot drum over Palestine
 Recruit a grand total of six new Social Workers, over four or five years.   NB:  All the recruits to be naive semi-literate teenage students
 Trumpet this as a great success

To be fair to your Cllr L up there, he did win a very good reelection - but I know how you Social Workers despise what you call "electoralism".


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> How about a revluation of the relationship between the CC and orodinary members for starters? Any lessons you think can be learnt from this fiasco? Surely there must be something?


lessons from my experience mostly Socialist Alliance?  Working with working-class people, even middle-class people, church organisations football clubs etc in common cause democratically can be really enjoyable.  Try to work with politicals who analyse every letter in a sentence for political nuances is tedious.  Electioneering is an awful experience.  Especially if you think there is no parliamentary road to socialism.

Re-evaluate the relationship between the cc: and the ordinary members?  No I don't think so.  I will do what most people do, look around, see there is no better alternative, and be sorry.  I know Louis always thinks I am lying, but I truly do wish you every success and my personal guarantee if I ever witnessed any I am sure to join.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> That model being:-
> 
> Bang the Islamo-Trot drum over Palestine
> Recruit a grand total of six new Social Workers, over four or five years.   NB:  All the recruits to be naive semi-literate teenage students
> ...


I despise taking part in elections yes.  Threw my heart and soul into it, suck and see, and found it awful.

You amaze me that you think all those white working class people would only be interested in people who Bang the Islamo-Trot drum over Palestine.

Thanks for confirming my point earlier, that respect was not about recruitment for SW.

I don't have a detailed analysis, but first impression it does appear socialist revolutionaries have successfully substituted for the working class in creating a reformist alternative to the political status quo in Preston.in my opinion for respect to be successful revolutionaries would need to be at maximum 1/10th of the political activists, preferably 100th or greater.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 18, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> ... Fisher_Gate frankly embarrassed himself with his poor use of Trotsky in an attempt to claim that there was something innately unrevolutionary about a Party which recruited from the 'intelligentsia'.
> ...



No I didn't claim anything of the sort.  

Trotsky gets right the role of the intelligentsia, its role is supplementary to the importance of the working class.  Although Trotsky was not a Bolshevik at that time, he understood the leading role of the working class within the revolutionary party.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 18, 2007)

Errr, where does Trotsky mention the worker's role in the 'Revolutionary Party' in that article? I'll save you the hassle of ploughing through it and tell you now he _doesn't_. Obviously, the most fundamental tenet of Marxism is that the revolution will be the 'self-emancipation' of the working classes. Obviously, therefore, students are not important in the revolutionary process once it has begun.

All Trotsky does in that pamphlet is detail the practical reasons why the 'intelligentsia' _won't_ be convinced of socialism. Not that they shouldn't be, not that a revvo party shouldn't be stuffed full of them, even! Just that they won't be convinced on mass to revolutionary politics! Read it yourself! Learn to disseminate information!


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Nov 18, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Do you really believe that, KJ?
> I get your point about Cable Street though, the numbers certainly wouldn't be the same.



I genuinely believe that there is very little grass roots left activity that chimes with the mass of people who are being adversely affected by nu labour / nu tories.   The left has failed a lot of people that is one of the reasons why people are voting fash.  The families of those who fought facsism find themselves sneered at by the very left that stood side by side with them in the past. This might be because the left has got more intellectualised than it was in the past and divorced from its roots.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 18, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Errr, where does Trotsky mention the worker's role in the 'Revolutionary Party' in that article? I'll save you the hassle of ploughing through it and tell you now he _doesn't_. Obviously, the most fundamental tenet of Marxism is that the revolution will be the 'self-emancipation' of the working classes. Obviously, therefore, students are not important in the revolutionary process once it has begun.
> 
> All Trotsky does in that pamphlet is detail the practical reasons why the 'intelligentsia' _won't_ be convinced of socialism. Not that they shouldn't be, not that a revvo party shouldn't be stuffed full of them, even! Just that they won't be convinced on mass to revolutionary politics! Read it yourself! Learn to disseminate information!




Trotsky uses the phrase "Social Democracy" or "Social Democratic Movement" to mean the "Revolutionary Party" - look at the date on it; the revolutionary party of the Russian proletariat at the time was (mistranslated) as the "Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party" Росси́йская Социа́л-Демократи́ческая Рабо́чая Па́ртия (Labour" here actually meaning "Workers" - the word in the Russian title is Рабо́чая 'Roborchaya'  or " of the workers", Trood is the nearest russian equivalent to Labour as in "the efforts of our labour produce the contents of a pay packet"; so the party's title could just as well be be translated as Russian Revolutionary-Socialist Workers Party !).

Once you understand that elementary fact then passages like this make perfect sense:



> A worker comes to socialism as a part of a whole, along with his class, from which he has no prospect of escaping. He is even pleased with the feeling of his moral unity with the mass, which makes him more confident and stronger. The intellectual, however, comes to socialism, breaking his class umbilical cord as an individual, as a personality, and inevitably seeks to exert influence as an individual. But just here he comes up against obstacles – and as time passes the bigger these obstacles become.
> 
> At the beginning of the Social-Democratic movement, every intellectual who joined, even though not above the average, won for himself a place in the working-class movement. Today every newcomer finds, in the Western European countries, the colossal structure of working-class democracy already existing. Thousands of labour leaders, who have automatically been promoted from their class, constitute a solid apparatus at the head of which stand honoured veterans, of recognized authority, figures that have already become historic. Only a man of exceptional talent would in these circumstances be able to hope to win a leading position for himself – but such a man, instead of leaping across the abyss into a camp alien to him, will naturally follow the line of least resistance into the realm of industry or state service. Thus there also stands between the intelligentsia and socialism, like a watershed, in addition to everything else, the organizational apparatus of Social Democracy. It arouses discontent among members of the intelligentsia with socialist sympathies, from whom it demands discipline and self-restraint – sometimes in respect of their “opportunism” and sometimes, contrariwise, in respect of their excessive “radicalism” – and dooms them to the role of querulous lookers-on who vacillate in their sympathies between anarchism and national-liberalism. Simplicissimus is their highest ideological banner.
> 
> With various modifications and to varying degrees, this phenomenon is repeated in all countries of Europe. These people are, more than any other group, too blasé, so to speak, too cynical, for a revelation, even the most moving, of the cultural significance of socialism to conquer their souls. Only rare “ideologues” – using this word in both the good sense and the bad – are capable of coming to socialist convictions under the stimulus of pure theoretical thinking, with, as their points of departure, the demands of law, as in the case of Anton Menger, or the requirements of technique, as in that of Atlanticus. But even such as these, as we know, do not usually get as far as the actual Social-Democratic movement, and the class struggle of the proletariat in its internal connection with socialism remains for them a book sealed with seven seals.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 18, 2007)

The 'Social Democratic _Movement_ meant something as specific as the 'Revolutionary _Party_? Now - you may be able to argue that 'Social Democracy' was considered in the same vein as revolutionary socialism but tbh, if you're trying to tell me that Trotsky is referring specifically to revolutionary Parties when he says things like 'Social Democratic Movement' then you're talking complete bull.

Not to mention the fact that it's _still_ a colossal logical leap between Trotsky saying "every intellectual who joined, even though not above the average, won for himself a place in the working-class movement" and saying that the Revolutionary Party needs to based upon a working class membership! I repeat myself again; this pamphlet refers only to the practical impossibility of converting the mass of the 'intelligentsia' to socialism, not their less preferred position within the movement!

Read it properly! This is becoming boring!


----------



## JHE (Nov 18, 2007)

'Social Democracy' there refers to the Marxist-run workers' movement of the time, centred on Germany, but including parties in many countries, including the Russian party, which by then had split into Mensheviks (the Social Workers of their time) and the Bolsheviks (the bearers of militant burning truth).

****

Anyway, Dog, do you and your fellow Social Working students imagine that you are part of an 'intelligentsia'?

You should mention this some time to other students in the Union bar - or outside the prayer room, as you prefer.  It should get a good laugh.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 18, 2007)

This is funny on the Respect debris;
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/rip-respect-in-pieces/


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 19, 2007)

On the subject of petit-bourgeois, middle class and intellectuals in socialist parties: the criterion of the First International is useful.

In order to affiliate to the First International, a party had to have two-thirds members from the working class.

I would add that the ideology of the leadership should reflect the priorities of the w/c

Marx argued for this because of the plethora of middle class bohemian type socialist parties that were progressive but not very grounded and rooted in the w/c.  Reminds me of an anecdote of when Tony Cliff went to join an Egyptian trotskyist group, he was told when you see three rollsroyces parked in the street that's the trotskyists having a meeting!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

Well I'd suggest you all read 'What is to be done' and get Lenin's two cents on Party membership; i.e. the Revolutionary party should not be either a Party of revolutionaries _or_ a Party of intellectuals but a Party of professional Revolutionaries, individually picked from the entire movement.

But regardless, Social Democratic Movement does not mean Social Democratic _Party_ as Fishy so aptly claimed. And what Trotsky is actually talking about in that article is actually exactly what _I've_ been talking about over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over... He's talking about how there's not a cat's chance in hell of converting the 'intelligentsia' to Socialism en masse - therefore, I was right all along. Thankyou very much for this 'enlightening' argument F_G - it was very nice to concisely pwn the pedant.

As for where I belong JHE - where do you think you belong? If 'intelligentsia' refers to a social class (as Trotsky believed it did - the 'thinking' workers) I'm a working student with professional parents. All I ever said was that it's fine and dandy to recruit from Student layers.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I'm a working student with professional parents.



It doesn't show at all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

So what the fuck are you saying? Is this a vaguish and apolotical attempt to avoid the fact that _I was right and you were wrong_ and that you don't have the common courtesy to simply accept defeat in a dignified way?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Right? I've not mentioned trotsky or some 100 year old text - that was fisher gate you were arguing with genius. 

I was merely laughing at you and highlighting, in the context of a thread in which it's been revealed that the SWP's model ward and one that everyone should follow as closely as possible has only been able to recruit students, the shocking revelation that a chest prodding trot-youth turns out be a student offspring of professional parents  - i really had no idea, the bossiness and self-importance didn't give it away for the deluded arrogance, maybe it weas the mangement type approach that did it?


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 19, 2007)

butch...is the above attack an individual attack on das uberdog or a general attack on the swp?

just curious like..

edited for clarification


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Well unless you're all ranting chest prodding students with professional parents who make even your own party members cringe in embarressment every time you open your mouth, i think you can safely say i'm talking about him above...so you can put your proletarian medals back in the draw, no need to wave them in my face now


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 19, 2007)

same old butch   

your gettin like pickmans...pedantic


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I was merely laughing at you and highlighting, in the context of a thread in which it's been revealed that the SWP's model ward and one that everyone should follow as closely as possible has only been able to recruit students, the shocking revelation that a chest prodding trot-youth turns out be a student offspring of professional parents  - i really had no idea, the bossiness and self-importance didn't give it away for the deluded arrogance, maybe it weas the mangement type approach that did it?



You've yet to clarify what the hell the Labour Movement is (despite it being the central tenet of your argument), how we _should_ be recruiting from it - why it's bad that we're not, or basically justify any of the statements you've made. Wow - it almost lookslike you've lost the argument, not least because now 'What is to be done' is in the game, Lenin disagrees with you too!

As far as my background is concerned, when I was 3 and growing up in Rusholme my parents had to save up 8 months to buy me a new pair of shoes. I was one of the first kids on sure-start, free school meals - that kinda thing. The vast majority of my friends are still in that situation and it's one of the reasons I hold the views I do. So my parents went back to uni and completely changed career paths? I can assure you that if I do come accross as arrogant sometimes, it's fuck all to do with my parents and 100% to do with the fact I simply have my head placed much firmer on my shoulders than 'predictable ol' butch' - who's first reaction to any given situation is to mouth off about how this proves the SWP is shit.

Come off it - you are so being 'prolier than thou'.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Come off it - you are so being 'prolier than thou'.



And you have given him every (quite resonable) excuse too

ask gumbert


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

ffs - I get drawn into an argument about some bollocks - an argument which I go on to win - then rather than accept they were wrong my opponents resort instead to dissing my proley credentials and using my standard victory insults as "proof" of my managerial creed.

You seriously stooping so low as to join in on this intellectually suicidal charade Dennis?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You've yet to clarify what the hell the Labour Movement is (despite it being the central tenet of your argument), how we _should_ be recruiting from it - why it's bad that we're not, or basically justify any of the statements you've made. Wow - it almost lookslike you've lost the argument, not least because now 'What is to be done' is in the game, Lenin disagrees with you too!
> 
> As far as my background is concerned, when I was 3 and growing up in Rusholme my parents had to save up 8 months to buy me a new pair of shoes. I was one of the first kids on sure-start, free school meals - that kinda thing. The vast majority of my friends are still in that situation and it's one of the reasons I hold the views I do. So my parents went back to uni and completely changed career paths? I can assure you that if I do come accross as arrogant sometimes, it's fuck all to do with my parents and 100% to do with the fact I simply have my head placed much firmer on my shoulders than 'predictable ol' butch' - who's first reaction to any given situation is to mouth off about how this proves the SWP is shit.
> 
> Come off it - you are so being 'prolier than thou'.



The 'labour movement' is not the central tenet of my argument at all, it was, again fisher gate who brought up the 'labour movement' and your inability to gain any influence or members from it in your model ward-  and it was the central tenet of one of _your_ many and various appraches to get yourself out of the hole you've dug in preston, and like all the others, it failed. 

We all watched as you started off saying that your student group couldn't appeal to or recruit any maembers of the  'labour movement' as they're all tankies and stalinists, then when the idiocy of this characterisation failed due to its laughable nature you decided that you really meant _labour supporters_ and stalinists, this also failed when it was pointed out to you that your whole recent approach, the whole perspective beind the RESPECT initiative was the almost historically unique condtions existing at the moment to recruit _exactly these left-labour people_ - yet you had recruited not a one of them. 

You then pretended that i was talking about the _leadership_ of the 'labour movement' when i'd said nothing of the sort, and then finally and bizzarely collapsed your argument about the political nature of labour movement into an odd point that you were not only unable to recruit or effectively influence not only the left-of labour people mentioned above but also any 'active' people in the 'labour movement' _at all._

And sorry, i'm just laughing at how much you fit the stereotype - including the perfect image of you going shoeless for much of your early days. Great stuff. 

Just to remind you before you decide to post again - i'm not fishers gate, it should be easy to remember as you seem to know him in real life. I'm a different poster. I didn't bring up lenin, i've not mentioned him. i didn't bring up WITBD, i've not mentioned that, that was you. I'm not you and i'm not fishers gate.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> the Revolutionary party should not be [...] a Party of revolutionaries...



Priceless  

Befor you dig yourself any futher into that hole, try reading this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section6


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Priceless
> 
> Befor you dig yourself any futher into that hole, try reading this:
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section6



That is the most horrendous mis-quotation I have ever. read. ever.

Now, you've been more willing to actually try and read my arguments than some so far, so I'll give you a chance to re-read my real statement;



> Well I'd suggest you all read 'What is to be done' and get Lenin's two cents on Party membership; i.e. the Revolutionary party should not be either a Party of revolutionaries or a Party of intellectuals *but a Party of professional Revolutionaries, individually picked from the entire movement*.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Does the SWP take WITBD as it's organisational basis then?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

this is exactly what you said - said that a Revolutionary shouldn't be either a) a party of revolutionaries(!), or b) a party of intellectuals but...[something else] 

Whereas of course Lenin's position was that a revolutionary party was a party of revolutionaries!- your version is a silly caricature even of Lenin's position in WITDB (which is itself highly contestable - even from Leninist as well as Non-Leninist perspectives - see the Hal Draper link).


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 19, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Does the SWP take WITBD as it's organisational basis then?



rather trite considering this is an attack on an individual member of the swp and not the swp as a whole organisation...


----------



## Gumbert (Nov 19, 2007)

*off to the real world*


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Gumbert said:
			
		

> rather trite considering this is an attack on an individual member of the swp and not the swp as a whole organisation...



You what?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You seriously stooping so low as to join in on this intellectually suicidal charade Dennis?



i don't think one can ever stoop low enough.

i take you lead on this.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

Well done butchers, you've taken up the brave (but ultimately doomed) task of trying to repair the complete mess you made of everything you've said so far! I salute you, before I cane you.




			
				butters said:
			
		

> The *'labour movement' is not the central tenet of my argument at all*, it was, again fisher gate who brought up the 'labour movement' and your inability to gain any influence or members from it in your model ward- and *it was the central tenet of one of your many and various appraches to get yourself out of the hole you've dug in preston, and like all the others, it failed.*



Ok, Ok. But wait!? Didn't my dispute with you start after you said...




			
				butty said:
			
		

> So you held onto how many? Over one year? And how active were they within that year? *And over-reliant on students much?*



and...



> ...*and on top of that, it's students and a lecturer recruiting students.* What does that say?



Why, yes it was!

From this point, I defended the fact that the SWP recruited students, and the fact that we had failed to recruit people 'from the Labour Movement' as the 'Labour Movement' as it exists today (presumably in organised Labour organisations like Trade Unions?) is full of post-Soviets and Labour Party members;- something which you ludicrously deny, though no-one else seems to have backed you up (and believe me, the will is there to back you up). From this point, you take up the mantle of the 'Labour Movement' argument in defense of Fisher with this post, #1256:




			
				bleeding pinny said:
			
		

> The 'labour movement' doesn't mean the bureaucracy you spolit child (despite the SWPs attempts at rubbing up to the Morning Star).
> 
> So, what you realy mean is that you don't appeal to any union members at all - stalinist or otherwise other than the NUS - that you don't in fact appeal to anyone other than students. And this is the model ward. Now that Jerry Hicks has been dissapeared anyway. Great stuff.



So, you _do_ base your argument around the Labour movement, and how vitally important it is to be recruiting workers, workers and more workers to the 'Revolutionary Party'!

You claim in your recent post that I have shifted positions continually to avoid the issue - let's give a little reminder of what I've been saying all the way through...

#1247




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> Ye Gads, what's with all the student hating? Unfortunately (what with the decline of the Unions and general organised Labour and all) it is much harder to recruit people from the 'Labour Movement' - who by and large haven't even been renewing their OWN membership of anyone under the age of fifty in the past 20 years! Through Respect we've been working in close cahoots with at least 7 prominent Trade Unionists from the Trades Council, PCS and FBU - but to expect any of them to run up and join the SWP without a fuck of a lot of ideological courting would be unbelievably stupid. I'm talking years - these are people who've gone through one end of the tunnel of political activism and are quickly approaching the end as it is. I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join. Yes we recruit students, so what? Our most recent member is 19 and not a student. I'm a student but I don't think that somehow doesn't count. How the fuck are the demographics of the IMG doing for students, or anybody Fisher you twat? Not very well, eh? Sort out your own issues.



#1249




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> You twat. Friggin'_Gimp accused us of not recruiting from layers of the Labour movement. Unless you have absolutely zero experience with the actually politicised and active socialist Trade Unionists (who exist in ever dwindling numbers under the age of 40) which I'm sure you don't - you can't possibly claim that there aren't massive links between them and the old CPGB, or that the vast majority haven't flirted with the Soviet Union in the past.



#1251




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> No, I'm not - I'm just saying that a fuckuvalot of people who were specifically experienced in 1960s-70s Trade Union activism have an awful lot emotionally tied up in the Labour Party, and lost an awful lot when the Berlin Wall fell.



#1268




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> Err, I know it's no use trying to get you to comprehend simple discussion, but for all those who may have had their perception of this argument skewed by your irrelevant comments, Fisher_Gate actually accused us beforehand of not recruiting from the LABOUR MOVEMENT, which I (rather brilliantly I might add) claimed was overwhelmingly over 40 and emotionally tied up in Labour and post-Soviet Union politics. This you simply deny - which I again will use as evidence you have zero experience with the 'Labour Movement' today.



...



> And no-one's fucking told me why it's so fucking bad to be recruiting students either? I'm guessing it's just because you're all anti-Enlightenment Proley populists. Fair do's - just don't try and pass yourselves off as serious Marxists in future. Marxism isn't just about recruiting workers at all costs: There's nothing at all anti-academic about Marxism - how many worker's were there in the original Bolshevik minority faction? The point of the vanguard is to be there when things do start to happen.
> 
> In all, there is currently no serious revolutionary current to speak of running through any vein of British society - be it in popular culture, working class organisation, youth sub-cultures or anything else you'd like to name. Why on earth would anybody be recruiting millions of worker's in this period? Are they? If not, how come the SWP is getting Flak for being successful in recruiting at least a certain section of society? Oh yeah, it's because you're all wankers. Sorry, I forget who I'm talking to sometimes.



#1272




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> What the fuck would you refer to as the 'Labour Movement' today butch-boy? Where the fuck is it? What are your suggestions as to how we 'recruit from it'? Go get fucked; what my post actually says is that we actually do have one new non-student member, if you read it properly - but as far as I'm concerned that's irrelevant to the extreme. What the fuck makes having 'some workers' in the party so fantastically brilliant? Fuck all, if they're shit!
> 
> ...



And that brings us up to the big argument with Fisher, etcetera - from which point we're basically where we are now. Kindly tell me where I've deviated from the original focus of my argument? Where have I "decided that I really meant labour _supporters_ and stalinists" as you claim? Or "then pretended that you were talking about the _leadership_ of the 'labour movement' (as though I didn't revise my statement to say 'active memers of' at a moment's notice and without quibbling as to whether my original wording was false) or that we couldn't attract anyone active in the Labour movement at all - when in fact, I have consistently argued that Respect is doing this very effectively and what we are currently talking about is the _SWP_.

Just to remind you, here are all the occasions you've mentioned the Labour movement as the basis of your argument;




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> The 'labour movement' doesn't mean the bureaucracy you spolit child






			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And the LABOUR MOVEMENT is not full of stalinists and USSR supporters.






			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And this where the essential dishonesty of hooverbag kicks in again. I didn't mention 'leaders', i didn't specify leaders, I, in fact, said the exact opposite - normal members, not 'leaders'.



And let me also remind you that you've yet to define this illustrious Labour Movement - as it is the basis of our discussion.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> this is exactly what you said - said that a Revolutionary shouldn't be either a) a party of revolutionaries(!), or b) a party of intellectuals but...[something else]
> 
> Whereas of course Lenin's position was that a revolutionary party was a party of revolutionaries!- your version is a silly caricature even of Lenin's position in WITDB (which is itself highly contestable - even from Leninist as well as Non-Leninist perspectives - see the Hal Draper link).



Are you seriously saying that you interpret mypost as saying there should be no revolutionaries in a revolutionary party? ffs - if you're going to dispute something I've said then please, at least do it from a vaguely intelligent angle. I realise it's hard for you to comprehend how someone can at both times abusive and yet lucid but grossly underestimating my intelligence is the common downfall of idiots on urban.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 19, 2007)

> I was one of the first kids on sure-start



Really? that would make you at best 13, given that the first sure start projects werent rolled out until 2000 and are aimed at the under 5s (under 3s at first)


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

DU - you are embarrasing yourself (and your comrades) and it's no good lashing out about how everyone else is insulting your - much vaunted - intelligence.

You are trying to cover the poverty of Respect's achievements - in the "model area!" - with the fig leaf of WITDB - in a manner which is
a) so cack-handed even your own lot are cringing 
and b) based on a thorough misreading of Lenin, who you appear to be defending 

Have you read the Draper yet?  Or even one of your "own"  (PS I am trying to do you a favour here, Christ knows why!)
:
http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2006/11/lihs-lenin-review-of-lars-t-lih-lenin.html


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Brilliant. I salute you dull, simple minded and baflling indefatigability. 

First off, let's take a quick look at my actual argument as it really stands rather than your rather bizzare reconstruction of it. It is in essence quite simple. Taking my cue from fisher gates highlighting of the SWPs amazing claims about Preston




			
				swp CC said:
			
		

> _SWP branches like Preston ... have become vibrant because they have recruited young people and key activists out of the movement. There is no secret formula: the branches have fought hard to win people to our ideas and have created a culture of recruitment in their branches.
> ...
> In Preston ... older comrades and their organisers have recruited a new layer of activists. ... Lavalette ... plays a pivotal role guiding and developing our new members" (CC page 11)_



and your undermining, no, your destruction, of this piece of tendentious bollocks by revealing that the SWP in Preston actually consists of a handful of students and a lecturer - (the students lecturer maybe?) i simply asked in what sense then should this be the model anyone would follow? Esp given that it seems unable to recruit or influence non-student working class people at all, despite having an elected councillor and a full timer based in the area to take advantage of the uniquely beneficial local conditions. 

Note that bit about non-student working class people, that doesn't mean 'the labour movement' in any of the various forms you've pout forward to characterise it on this thread alone (more on that later). There are more people in the world than students and 'the labour movement' - you might not yet have been around long enough to have witnessed this in real life, but i assure you, it is true.

Now, following these revelations, fisher gate (that's a different poster mind, not me) replied to you:



> Yes I guessed this was so. The SWP have not recruited anyone from the wider labour movement in Preston for a couple of years, despite having a councillor and a full timer. The full timer has concentrated on recruiting college school and uni students, rather than relate to the Labour movement.



To which you responded, to him, not to me with a ridiculous post claiming that 



> I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join.



Which was my entry into any debate about the labour movement, it's hard to see how something that chronogically followed on my actual argument could, in fact, form the basis for it - especially given that i didn't mention it, didn't bring it up and only responded to one of yout daft posts. You freely acknowldge this yourself at that very point:



> You twat. Friggin'_Gimp accused us of not recruiting from layers of the Labour movement.



And, for your ever expanding defintions of the 'labour movement' within this thread:



> I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join.



Which rather quickly morphed into:



> I'm just saying that a fuckuvalot of people who were specifically experienced in 1960s-70s Trade Union activism have an awful lot emotionally tied up in the Labour Party



then, 



> This dispute came from the point that butchers made, that it is horrendously bad for a Revvo Party not to be recruiting the 'Leaders' of the 'Labour Movement



So we've gone from the 'labour movement being composed of stalinists, to it being composed of stalinists and labour types, then we suddenly are informed that mr dog is not really talking about the 'labour movement' at all, he actually meant the _'leaders'_ of the 'labour movement' He has time for one last shape-shift though, when it's pointed out that i nowhere mentioned or talked about 'leader's of any damn thing, he collapses with



> Well, Ok - 'active people' then.


.

How far we've moved from the original defintion. And still he reads it wrong, still he sees a criticism of his activty in his model ward as not recruiting any non-student working class people as only having one possible meaning, it can only refer to non-recruitment of labour activists - because that's all there is isn't it?

Real blinder this from DU - it's not odd to get posters who get some things wrong on a lenghty thread, but to get every one arse about tit and to continually confuse one posters arguments with another -even after having it pointed out to you numerous times? That takes a special sort of skill and lack of attention.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Really? that would make you at best 13, given that the first sure start projects werent rolled out until 2000 and are aimed at the under 5s (under 3s at first)



Suddenly it all becomes very clear


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

well whatever equivalent they had in Manchester at the time. It was called something else before sure-start.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> How far we've moved from the original defintion. And still he reads it wrong, still he sees a criticism of his activty in his model ward as not recruiting any non-student working class people as only having one possible meaning, it can only refer to non-recruitment of labour activists - because that's all there is isn't it?



Presumably he thinks that - following WITDB - since workers can only ever hope to reach "trade union consciousness", then the ones who haven't reached this stage (yet) are just 'backward types', slow learners etc.  

Which is why it is necessary to re-create some kind of mass reformist movement, so they can get all get upto speed quick enough in time to become so disappointed that clever types like DU can give them some proper ideas instead


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

1) Where on Earth does that statement from the CC refer to activists from the 'Labour movement'?

2) The argument between us _started_ when you claimed the SWP membership was 'over-reliant' on students. Then you start blathering on about the Labour Movement when I address your point in relation to Fisher. You then start blathering about the Labour movement and how much the SWP have failed in their 'stated objectives' by not recruiting from it.

Somehow, I'm supposed to get how you weren't either a)originally referring and substantiating Fisher's comments and b)basing your argument around the SWPs success in recruiting members of the Labour movement?

3) Your semantic attack on my use of the term 'Labour Movement' is groundless and hardly needs dealing with; I haven't changed my definition whatsoever (please kindly refer me to where I made a definition to change in the first place), and you've taken my quotes out of a wider context. Note that I have consistently asked for clarification on what you percieve to _be_ the Labour movement in order to get some kind of meaningful take on what the fuck you're talking about whenever you _say_ it. I would refer you back to my last post for confirmation.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> 'backward types', slow learners etc.



credit were credit is due - he would know about slow learners  (i really needed one of those wee 'evil horned smileys' at this point...)


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Presumably he thinks that - following WITDB - since workers can only ever hope to reach "trade union consciousness", then the ones who haven't reached this stage (yet) are just 'backward types', slow learners etc.
> 
> Which is why it is necessary to re-create some kind of mass reformist movement, so they can get all get upto speed quick enough in time to become so disappointed that clever types like DU can give them some proper ideas instead



For fuck's sake - how on earth have you managed to make this mountain out of such a small mole-hill? I'll give you a hint as to what's actually happened (and yes it started with a mistake on my part) - I accidentally used the term revolutionaries instead of worker's. You have a fucking active imagination.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> 1) Where on Earth does that statement from the CC refer to activists from the 'Labour movement'?



And still he can't read straight.



> 2) The argument between us _started_ when you claimed the SWP membership was 'over-reliant' on students. Then you start blathering on about the Labour Movement when I address your point in relation to Fisher. You then start blathering about the Labour movement and how much the SWP have failed in their 'stated objectives' by not recruiting from it.
> 
> Somehow, I'm supposed to get how you weren't either a)originally referring and substantiating Fisher's comments and b)basing your argument around the SWPs success in recruiting members of the Labour movement?



Translation = _shit, you're right, but how was i supposed to know that an argument that you made well before a later one by another poster was not referring to that future post - you can see how easily i might have become confused!_



> 3) Your semantic attack on my use of the term 'Labour Movement' is groundless and hardly needs dealing with; I haven't changed my definition whatsoever (please kindly refer me to where I made a definition to change in the first place), and you've taken my quotes out of a wider context. Note that I have consistently asked for clarification on what you percieve to _be_ the Labour movement in order to get some kind of meaningful take on what the fuck you're talking about whenever you _say_ it. I would refer you back to my last post for confirmation.



Just have done all that pike. You're not going to admit it of course. But there you go.


----------



## iminwetatu (Nov 19, 2007)

boring

you think discussions as petty and disrespectful as this will get anybody anywhere?

apart of course from glued to their computer for 52 bloody pages!

DU i reckon this isnt worth ur breath, I had a gud and moderately heated argument with a postie on the picket lines of the recent strike which was about workerism and the role of students in the workers movement.

that perhaps is the kind of situation relevant for such discussions. This is at best an interesting way to spend sum time, interesting but almost entirely pointless.

It's quite obvious that most people on these boards spend more time being "politically active" here than in what some of us mite call "the real world"

peace to all


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

dennisr said:
			
		

> credit were credit is due - he would know about slow learners  (i really needed one of those wee 'evil horned smileys' at this point...)


Are you having a dig at Manchester Sure Start  



> Well I'd suggest you all read 'What is to be done' and get Lenin's two cents on Party membership;



I've not made anything up - just trying to reconstruct a 'logic' of sort from your posts.  You say we should read WITBD to understand party membership.  There, Lenin says workers without intellectual leadership will only reach trade union consciousness.  Is this your position, or not?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> There, Lenin says workers without intellectual leadership will only reach trade union consciousness.



He doesn't say quite that, does he? In fact he quotes something a bit less extreme than that from Kautsky and then somewhat undermines even Kautsky's sentiment with his own footnotes. And then never says anything remotely similar again in all of his voluminous writings.

He was still wrong, mind you.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> He doesn't say quite that, does he? In fact he quotes something a bit less extreme than that from Kautsky and then somewhat undermines even Kautsky's sentiment with his own footnotes. And then never says anything remotely similar again in all of his voluminous writings.
> 
> He was still wrong, mind you.



Well it's debatable - I'd say that was the essence of what Kautsky said in a bit Lenin chose to quote, and Lenin's own gloss doesn't contest the general principle just some of the socio-historical detail.

But, DU seems to invoke WITBD as gospel, and then use it as an excuse for the fact Respect has recruited a few students and not much else even in the area they single out for praise.  Am asking if that is a)true, and b)wise [edit - not making this the basis of a general attack on Lenin, who can be reconstructed much more plausibly than this!].


----------



## Belushi (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> well whatever equivalent they had in Manchester at the time. It was called something else before sure-start.



Well, Sure Start was only proposed in the 1998 _Meeting the Childcare Challenge_ Green Paper, there was no equivalent in Manchester prior to that I can find any reference to, though Im not at work at the moment.

Are you sure you werent telling porkies about your hard childhood


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...
> revealing that the SWP in Preston actually consists of a handful of students and a lecturer - (the students lecturer maybe?) ...



Two lecturers actually.  And no they don't actually teach any students in Preston though they did once;, they now teach in the rather more academically upmarket 'redbricks' in Manchester and Liverpool.  And to be fair another two of the others are recent ex-students, but they did join the SWP when they were students, as did at least one of the lecturers.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 19, 2007)

DU and chums.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> How far we've moved from the original defintion. And still he reads it wrong, still he sees a criticism of his activty in his model ward as not recruiting any non-student working class people as only having one possible meaning, it can only refer to non-recruitment of labour activists - because that's all there is isn't it?
> ...



I wouldn't even worry about middle class working people! ... The odd school teacher or civil servant or even social worker  wouldn't be so bad, as they are disproportionately represented in left wing groups anyway.  

But *not* to recruit *anyone* who is *not* a student - regardless of whether they are a 'labour movement' activist, middle class professional, or horny-handed son of toil salt-of-the-earth manual worker, even if they did had illusions in stalinism (like every one else over 40 it appears) - after 4 years of having a councillor, and 18 months of a full timer on the ground in a small city of 100,000 people, seems incredible to me, especially when it is used as a model in the pre conference bulletin of what a perfect branch looks like!

[Is that a prize for the longest sentence ever used in this thread?  Sorry can't be bothered to change it]


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

Gumbert said:
			
		

> rather trite considering this is an attack on an individual member of the swp and not the swp as a whole organisation...



The SWP Central Committee were the authors of the document in Pre Conference Discussion Bulletin 1 that used the Preston Branch as an exemplar for the direction the whole organisation needed to go in.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 19, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Right? I've not mentioned trotsky or some 100 year old text - that was fisher gate you were arguing with genius.
> 
> I was merely laughing at you and highlighting, in the context of a thread in which it's been revealed that the SWP's model ward and one that everyone should follow as closely as possible has only been able to recruit students, the shocking revelation that a chest prodding trot-youth turns out be a student offspring of professional parents  - i really had no idea, the bossiness and self-importance didn't give it away for the deluded arrogance, maybe it weas the mangement type approach that did it?


 arrogance?  That was what gave it away?  So what were your parents, I'm dying to know?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

F_g: I don't remember you raising criticisms of the class basis of Respect's approach (in Preston) on these boards in the months and months before Thornett et al got cold feet on the project.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Well I'd suggest you all read 'What is to be done' and get Lenin's two cents on Party membership; i.e. the Revolutionary party should not be either a Party of revolutionaries _or_ a Party of intellectuals but a Party of professional Revolutionaries, individually picked from the entire movement.
> 
> But regardless, Social Democratic Movement does not mean Social Democratic _Party_ as Fishy so aptly claimed. And what Trotsky is actually talking about in that article is actually exactly what _I've_ been talking about over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over... He's talking about how there's not a cat's chance in hell of converting the 'intelligentsia' to Socialism en masse - therefore, I was right all along. Thankyou very much for this 'enlightening' argument F_G - it was very nice to concisely pwn the pedant.
> 
> As for where I belong JHE - where do you think you belong? If 'intelligentsia' refers to a social class (as Trotsky believed it did - the 'thinking' workers) I'm a working student with professional parents. All I ever said was that it's fine and dandy to recruit from Student layers.




And I've already said I don't accept your reading of the pamphlet - I think you are not reading accurately terminology that was common parlance 100 years ago.  

I'm clear what Trotsky meant in that pamphlet; I first read it in the 1970s when I was in the IMG as it was an important text about the role of students in a revolutionary movement, party, circle or group (call it what you will this was before the Comintern and definitions of parties were looser).  

The IMG may have had a lot of students, and even been occasionally student centric, but it sure as hell in the branch I was in made sure it attempted to recruit trade union activists and even factory workers, and even succeeded at times, mainly through political interventions in bodies like Trades Councils and campaign groups.  I can remember a good few working class activists who joined at that time.  Sadly they were all lost when a crazy faction hijacked the organisation and decided it was a good idea for all the students to go and work in factories - okay in moderation, but a disaster for an entire organisation.  [I also learnt some scepticism about the role of 'infallible' leadership in revolutionary groups too - something very few in the SWP seem to have, despite the current kamikaze line of the current leadership.]


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> F_g: Don't remember raising criticisms of the class basis of Respect's approach in Preston on these boards in the months and months before Thornett et al got cold feet on the project.



Respect and the SWP are two different things - I've always said that.  

The Respect Branch has a different base, with both experienced and new activists from the 'actual existing Labour Movement' who are not in the SWP.  

The SWP locally are either 'old timers' from the year dot, or students/recent ex-students recruited while they were students.  There's no in-between and no new workers going into the SWP, despite massive resources and prestige.  

Some non-SWP people have sadly signed the SWP petition (though not all - recent former councillor Steven Brooks is conspicuously absent and I don't believe would sign it, even if approached) due to ignorance about what has been happening nationally, but there is no way they are ever going to join the SWP.  At least one of them has told me they "would not trust the SWP with a bargepole", even though they have signed the petition in a belated attempt to achieve unity nationally.  The SWP will undoubtably seek to continue the Branch as "business as usual" but the cracks will start to appear sooner rather than later.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

Ok, I seriously don't give enough of a shit about how people view my proley credentials to go and ask my parents what scheme it was that got me free school meals and all the other shit that comes with whatever; I'm middle-class and I won't deny it.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Translation = shit, you're right, but how was i supposed to know that an argument that you made well before a later one by another poster was not referring to that future post - you can see how easily i might have become confused!



Errr, no? Seriously man, can you read English? On two counts;




			
				CC said:
			
		

> SWP branches like Preston ... have become vibrant because they have recruited young people and key activists out of the *movement*. There is no secret formula: the branches have fought hard to win people to our ideas and have created a culture of recruitment in their branches.
> ...
> In Preston ... older comrades and their organisers have recruited a new layer of activists. ... Lavalette ... plays a pivotal role guiding and developing our new members" (CC page 11)



I've even gone as far as to highlight all uses of the words 'Labour Movement' in this extract. It scores at 1/2 - and I'm being generous.

2nd count:

-You said the SWP in Preston was too reliant on students.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...and on top of that, it's students and a lecturer recruiting students. What does that say?



-I said that Fisher was arguing about the Labour movement.




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> Ye Gads, what's with all the student hating? Unfortunately (what with the decline of the Unions and general organised Labour and all) it is much harder to recruit people from the 'Labour Movement' - who by and large haven't even been renewing their OWN membership of anyone under the age of fifty in the past 20 years! Through Respect we've been working in close cahoots with at least 7 prominent Trade Unionists from the Trades Council, PCS and FBU - but to expect any of them to run up and join the SWP without a fuck of a lot of ideological courting would be unbelievably stupid. I'm talking years - these are people who've gone through one end of the tunnel of political activism and are quickly approaching the end as it is. I think you underestimate how hard it is to convince someone who pledged their whole life to saluting the Soviet Union that their arch-nemesis Trot schemers are the people they want to join. Yes we recruit students, so what? Our most recent member is 19 and not a student. I'm a student but I don't think that somehow doesn't count. How the fuck are the demographics of the IMG doing for students, or anybody Fisher you twat? Not very well, eh? Sort out your own issues.



- Without denying you were agreeing with Fisher or even distinguishing your argument from his you instead blather on about something.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Madness. Ordinary people -like what you're supposed to be appealing to in encreasing numbers aren't stalinists, nor are normal trade unionists.



-I try and bring the discussion back on track...




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> You twat. Friggin'_Gimp accused us of not recruiting from layers of the Labour movement. Unless you have absolutely zero experience with the actually politicised and active socialist Trade Unionists (who exist in ever dwindling numbers under the age of 40) which I'm sure you don't - you can't possibly claim that there aren't massive links between them and the old CPGB, or that the vast majority haven't flirted with the Soviet Union in the past.



-You blather about the Labour movement




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> The 'labour movement' doesn't mean the bureaucracy you spolit child (despite the SWPs attempts at rubbing up to the Morning Star).
> 
> So, what you realy mean is that you don't appeal to any union members at all - stalinist or otherwise other than the NUS - that you don't in fact appeal to anyone other than students. And this is the model ward. Now that Jerry Hicks has been dissapeared anyway. Great stuff.



I try again to bring the discussion back on track...




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> Err, I know it's no use trying to get you to comprehend simple discussion, but for all those who may have had their perception of this argument skewed by your irrelevant comments, Fisher_Gate actually accused us beforehand of not recruiting from the LABOUR MOVEMENT, which I (rather brilliantly I might add) claimed was overwhelmingly over 40 and emotionally tied up in Labour and post-Soviet Union politics. This you simply deny - which I again will use as evidence you have zero experience with the 'Labour Movement' today.
> 
> ...



-You blather about Labour Movement




			
				butchersparon said:
			
		

> And the LABOUR MOVEMENT is not full of stalinists and USSR supporters. Don't be so daft. And don't now try and smuggle in 'labour supporting' now that you've realised just how daft your original characterisation was. Even this attempt at a get-out only helps to show how poor your performance is though - an initiative aimed specifically at people who have traditionally supported labour but might now be open to a more broad-left perspective has recruited no one from this 'layer' - and this in the model ward.



- I ask you what on Earth you mean by the Labour movement




			
				D-Dawg said:
			
		

> What the fuck would you refer to as the 'Labour Movement' today butch-boy? Where the fuck is it? What are your suggestions as to how we 'recruit from it'? Go get fucked; what my post actually says is that we actually do have one new non-student member, if you read it properly - but as far as I'm concerned that's irrelevant to the extreme. What the fuck makes having 'some workers' in the party so fantastically brilliant? Fuck all, if they're shit!



-You make some irrelevant point




			
				butchersparon said:
			
		

> And this where the essential dishonesty of hooverbag kicks in again. I didn't mention 'leaders', i didn't specify leaders, I, in fact, said the exact opposite - normal members, not 'leaders'. And how many have you managed to get? None. In the model ward. None. Great stuff. I wonder why, when you see the above series of posts.



-You then deny you said anything about the Labour Movement.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Right? I've not mentioned trotsky or some 100 year old text - that was fisher gate you were arguing with genius.





> The 'labour movement' is not the central tenet of my argument at all





> First off, let's take a quick look at my actual argument as it really stands rather than your rather bizzare reconstruction of it.



-You then cry and call me Middle-Class. Lots of Urbanites find this funny.

I'm sorry if I find this a bit inconsistant. Am I really the only one here clever enough to see how butchers is talking absolute. utter. bullshit?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The SWP will undoubtably seek to continue the Branch as "business as usual" but the cracks will start to appear sooner rather than later.


I suppose they would argue that they had prioritised building Respect as a "United Front of a Special Kind" or whatever, and de-prioritised recruitment.    I must say - and this comes across on here too - that the political level of SWP members seems to have plummeted (from a not especially high level to begin with).  

I'm a bit perplexed by your phrase "new activists from the 'actually existing' Labour Movement".  Presumably this means activists 'new' to Respect, rather than people new to political activity (or by what token would they be recruited 'from' the Labour movement - by family ties?)?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

> And I've already said I don't accept your reading of the pamphlet - I think you are not reading accurately terminology that was common parlance 100 years ago.



You're incorrect; I can quite easily comprehend the idea that 'Social Democracy' was used to describe what we know now as revolutionary politics, I read enough from the period to know that quite well - the point _is_ that Trotsky is quite clearly arguing simply that the intelligentsia _won't_ come over to socialism and mentions nothing about the importance of recruiting workers to a revolutionary party! Show me where he does if you disagree. Don't try and blow smoke about.

Edit; I'm also fairly sure that 'Movement' wasn't used as a substitute word for 'Party' either!

Edited to add; MAN I fucking pwn!!!!!!!! 7331zorz!!!!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I'm a bit perplexed by your phrase "new activists from the 'actually existing' Labour Movement".  Presumably this means activists 'new' to Respect, rather than people new to political activity (or by what token would they be recruited 'from' the Labour movement - by family ties?)?



It's a mixture - some are new to Respect, some new to political activity.

Mukhtar Master, for example, who narrowly failed to get elected last year but I hope will be elected a councillor in Preston soon, is a muslim radicalised by the anti-war movement with no previous political activity, but he's also a union steward and activist in the largest trade union branch in Preston.  Three former Labour councillors with decades of activity have also joined the Respect branch in the last few years.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 19, 2007)

> Ok, I seriously don't give enough of a shit about how people view my proley credentials to go and ask my parents what scheme it was that got me free school meals and all the other shit that comes with whatever; I'm middle-class and I won't deny it.



Yeah, I'd say that if I'd been caught bullshitting and all


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

Then you'd be a lying toad, if, hypothetically, you'd been caught bullshitting.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You're incorrect; I can quite easily comprehend the idea that 'Social Democracy' was used to describe what we know now as revolutionary politics, I read enough from the period to know that quite well - the point _is_ that Trotsky is quite clearly arguing simply that the intelligentsia _won't_ come over to socialism and mentions nothing about the importance of recruiting workers to a revolutionary party! Show me where he does if you disagree. Don't try and blow smoke about.
> 
> Edit; I'm also fairly sure that 'Movement' wasn't used as a substitute word for 'Party' either!
> 
> Edited to add; MAN I fucking pwn!!!!!!!! 7331zorz!!!!



There is the quote I reproduced earlier ... #1299 http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6744894&postcount=1299

then there is this one:


> "There is a wall between the workers’ party and the mass of the students."



I think it is clear that Trotsky is saying that the "workers' party" or "social democratic movement" or "socialists" or "revolutionary movement" or however he defines it, needs to be *based* on workers.  

In his polemic with Adler he is making it clear that intellectuals, of which students are the clearest example, are welcome inside the revolutionary party, but because their *class interests *are different to those of the working class, they can never be won as a whole to socialism, while the working class can (the use of students as scabs in the General Strike is a classic example).  Furthermore, in the first quote I gave, he makes it clear that their participation is conditional - they must be prepared to listen to the workers and go with the workers rather than just put forward their own interests.

Now arguably mass participation in Higher Education since the 1960s has changed the social base of students, with a huge global radicalisation of student youth in 1968 and after in particular, but the argument that a revolutionary party must be based on workers still stands in my view.  Indeed, the much maligned resolutions of the 9th world congress of the Fourth International in 1969 - widely and mistakenly claimed by the sectarians as evidence of a rejection of the working class and a turn to the "student vanguard" - were quite clear on the relationship:



> Work among the youth is not an end in itself. It reaches fruition in the impetus given to the construction or reinforcement of the revolutionary parties that will be capable of leading the working class to victory. The sections of the Fourth International are as yet too small to lead the masses in their own name and under their own banner in a decisive struggle for power. Their work has a preparatory and predominantly propagandistic character involving limited actions.
> 
> Their task now is to win and educate decisive numbers of the radical youth in order to equip them for *the greater task of winning leadership of the revolutionary elements among the working masses*. To fulfill that function adequately, the youth recruits must thoroughly assimilate the organizational concepts of Bolshevism and its methods of constructing politically homogeneous and democratically centralized parties. The construction of such parties in the struggles that are erupting is the only means of overcoming the crisis of leadership which is the central contradiction of our epoch.
> 
> ...



Though I do not deny that some people got a bit carried away with the student movement ... it was never the programmatic position of the FI that students constituted a new class or could be won en masse.

[BTW the word "homogenous" in the quote does not mean that everyone agrees with everything - it means a clear common political focus]


----------



## audiotech (Nov 19, 2007)

.......


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

I would (and already have) argued that the founding base of Marxism _obviously_ puts emphasis on the worker's as the means for change, but whether or not that means a revolutionary Party should be _worker based_ or even seek to recruit workers _in particular_ is not logically extended from that pamphlet without a fairly noticeable whiff of supposition.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I would (and already have) argued that the founding base of Marxism _obviously_ puts emphasis on the worker's as the means for change, but whether or not that means a revolutionary Party should be _worker based_ or even seek to recruit workers _in particular_ is not logically extended from that pamphlet without a fairly noticeable whiff of supposition.


 all this disputation makes me wonder if you have ever considered the name of your party as being a little misleading


----------



## emanymton (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I would (and already have) argued that the founding base of Marxism _obviously_ puts emphasis on the worker's as the means for change, but whether or not that means a revolutionary Party should be _worker based_ or even seek to recruit workers _in particular_ is not logically extended from that pamphlet without a fairly noticeable whiff of supposition.


I have only skimmed through the recent debate with Mr Dog but WTF  

Is this really the standard of SWP members these days?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

My major question over the name of the SWP is the apostrophe. Is it, the Socialist, Worker's Party or the Socialist Workers, Party? Conundrum!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

emanymton said:
			
		

> I have only skimmed through the recent debate with Mr Dog but WTF
> 
> Is this really the standard of SWP members these days?



Out of your league, eh   ...


----------



## emanymton (Nov 19, 2007)

You know Preston SWP branch (well Lancashire in general) used to have a repetition of attracting more than its fair share of ‘eccentrics’, those who can’t really be taken seriously as activists but are humoured and welcomed nevertheless. Nice to know the tradition continues.


----------



## JHE (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> ...Marxism _obviously_ puts emphasis on the worker's as the means for change, but whether or not that means a revolutionary Party should be _worker based_ or even seek to recruit workers _in particular_ is not logically extended...



*Shhhhhhhh....!*

FFS, Dog, you are NOT supposed to admit that for you and your equally "intellectual" (  ) student Trot chums the proles are just a means to your end and you ARE supposed to pretend that your bossy little grouplet is a _workers' party_.  You really are not on-message, are you, boy?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

When the fuck have I _ever_ been on-message, foo'? And where did I say the worker's are a means to _my_ ends? The working classes are the only social group with the collective capacity to successfully create a new economic structure for society. The Revolutionary Party exists to propagandise and agitate for rebellion, and the vanguard group to try and guide a revolution's theoretical course once it has begun. These people can be from whichever background, so long as they are _real_ revolutionaries.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> I would (and already have) argued that the founding base of Marxism _obviously_ puts emphasis on the worker's as the means for change, but whether or not that means a revolutionary Party should be _worker based_ or even seek to recruit workers _in particular_ is not logically extended from that pamphlet without a fairly noticeable whiff of supposition.



Nonetheless a revolutionary party that understands, as Marx made clear, that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, must be primarily concerned with organising the most politically advanced sections of workers. Since the working class are a majority in capitalist society, the self emancipation of the working class is the pre-requisite of ushering in a classless society and human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism. 

What is to be Done was written in very specific circumstances and involved a high level of 'bending the stick'. Read Molyneux's Marxism and the Party and/or Harman's Party and class.


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2007)

or the Molyneux on Lars T Lihs' excellent book on WITBD (linked to earlier) - which contradicts DU entirely, and entirely convincingly


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Nonetheless a revolutionary party that understands, as Marx made clear, that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, must be primarily concerned with organising the most politically advanced sections of workers. Since the working class are a majority in capitalist society, the self emancipation of the working class is the pre-requisite of ushering in a classless society and human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.



Why do we presume that a Revolutionary Party which doesn't recruit people on the basis of their being 'Workers' and a Revolutionary Party which is primarily concerned with organising the most advanced sections of the working class have to be mutually exclusive?


----------



## Groucho (Nov 19, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Why do we presume that a Revolutionary Party which doesn't recruit people on the basis of their being 'Workers' and a Revolutionary Party which is primarily concerned with organising the most advanced sections of the working class have to be mutually exclusive?



I know what you are getting at, it is just a matter of clarity. Our ideal would in fact be a clear majority of organised worker activists. But we do not, would not and should not set up artificial limits to membership to students etc. So long as the party has an orientation on the working class. 

The IS began as a largely student based organisation. They nonetheless had an orientation on working class struggle. When the class struggle took off in the 70s the composition of the party changed massively. There were those who argued against recruiting workers who had not gone through years of study of Marx, Lenin etc, and they cited 'What is to be Done?' forgeting that the Bolsheviks recruited massively amongst workers in periods of hightened struggle, and especially in 1917. These vanguardists left the organisation to form an irrelevent sect.

Looking at the SWP today, after decades of the lowest levels of class struggle this country has ever seen, the roots the party has within the  unions is admirable. Nonetheless when the struggle takes off we should expect and aim to recruit workers in large numbers. That doesn't mean we would not also happily recruit students.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 19, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> What is to be Done was written in very specific circumstances and involved a high level of 'bending the stick'.



As was State and Revolution.


----------



## Macullam (Nov 20, 2007)

[
Looking at the SWP today, after decades of the lowest levels of class struggle this country has ever seen, the roots the party has within the  unions is admirable. 

Does that include Jane Loftus of CWU who is yet to come aout against accepting the crap deal on offer. You really are deluded if you think the SWP has any credibility in the unions. Why are they supporing right wing candidate in the NUT elections.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 20, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> the roots the party has within the unions is admirable.



could you expand on where these admirable roots exist?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 20, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> My major question over the name of the SWP is the apostrophe. Is it, the Socialist, Worker's Party or the Socialist Workers, Party? Conundrum!



Yeah, it's a real conundrum isn't it?  Not just whether there is an apostrophe, but where it goes ...

"Socialist Worker's Party" is definitely where you are heading, if you're not careful  ....

Lynne Truss, eat your heart out


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 20, 2007)

I think the point that Butchers is making though Groucho is that Preston is held up as a model of how to do political work and yet you've only managed to recruit a handful of students in that area, and that's it.

Lets face it none of the far left admirable roots in the unions at the moment, indeed the far left is a total irrelevance to 99% of people both in and outside of the trade union movement.

I think it can be taken as granted that a far left organisation should have its base among workers.

As for UberDog, he has all the symptoms of people who get involved in the far left when young and then have this hysterical way of debating (SWP student hacks are particuarly prone to that kinda thing, but all far left groups have that type).

Personally UD I don't see why you bother debating on here as it obviously just winds you up. And I don't see why other people bother responding to him at length when you obviously have long since decided he speaks gibberish.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2007)

The answer to that last line is in the preceeding one.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 20, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I think the point that Butchers is making though Groucho is that Preston is held up as a model of how to do political work and yet you've only managed to recruit a handful of students in that area, and that's it.


but isn't that what SW has been arguing would happen all the long?  Haven't SW argued the hit in the number of people turning up to Marxism, the lower level of recruitment, is to be expected and accept it as a price worth paying for concreting a revolutionary party into a "mass" reformist organisation of the working class?

now I know we could debate all the nuances of that belief, but it does answer butchers point doesn't it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 20, 2007)

Fisher_Gate is the basic tenets of the Galloway grouping the SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> but isn't that what SW has been arguing would happen all the long?  Haven't SW argued the hit in the number of people turning up to Marxism, the lower level of recruitment, is to be expected and accept it as a price worth paying for concreting a revolutionary party into a "mass" reformist organisation of the working class?
> 
> now I know we could debate all the nuances of that belief, but it does answer butchers point doesn't it?



No it doesn't - it directly contradicts the SWP CC statement that i was basing my post on.You're saying the _poor performance_ in Preston is to be expected, they're saying it's a _great performance_ and one that needs to be studied and then copied by everyone else. Here's the CC thing again as you seem to have missed it:

_SWP branches like Preston ... have become vibrant because they have recruited young people and key activists out of the movement. There is no secret formula: the branches have fought hard to win people to our ideas and have created a culture of recruitment in their branches.
...
In Preston ... older comrades and their organisers have recruited a new layer of activists. ... Lavalette ... plays a pivotal role guiding and developing our new members"_


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 20, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I know what you are getting at, it is just a matter of clarity. Our ideal would in fact be a clear majority of organised worker activists. But we do not, would not and should not set up artificial limits to membership to students etc. So long as the party has an orientation on the working class.
> 
> The IS began as a largely student based organisation. They nonetheless had an orientation on working class struggle. When the class struggle took off in the 70s the composition of the party changed massively...



Indeed it did...for a while...until an alarmed CC began to change it back! At every opportunity the links with the working class proper that had been forged through Rock against Racism, the rank and file blue collar trade unions groups, The Right to Work campaign, and street level anti-fascist activists were all deliberately broken. Engineering workers in the Midlands were expelled, the ANL shut down, (those that opposed it smeared and bounced out) the Building Worker Group shut down etc. In 1983 the purge was completed when dockers leader Micky Fenn was suspended on laughably pathetic charges. In the late '70's the SWP had a unique chance to fill the vacuum and it totally funked it. It has taken a quarter of a century for the chickens to come home to roost but it is utterly finished now.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 20, 2007)

Exactly as butchers has said above.

As for buildling a mass reformist organisation i) it shows that the SWP is taking a totally stagist approach ii) is being totally utopian as the SWP and a few assorted others couldn't achieve this anyway and iii) they've totally mis-read the period we're in and think that we're at the end of 35 years of stagnation and that capitalism is in big trouble.

Mark Steel was quite interesting on the last point.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 20, 2007)

Macullam said:
			
		

> [
> Looking at the SWP today, after decades of the lowest levels of class struggle this country has ever seen, the roots the party has within the  unions is admirable.
> 
> Does that include Jane Loftus of CWU who is yet to come aout against accepting the crap deal on offer. You really are deluded if you think the SWP has any credibility in the unions. Why are they supporing right wing candidate in the NUT elections.






			
				Socialist Worker Tue 6 Nov 2007 said:
			
		

> *Leading figures in CWU oppose the post deal*
> The vote by the CWU union's postal executive to accept and recommend Royal Mail's offer to the membership was not unanimous. Many of those in leading positions in the union recognise that the deal falls far short of what could have been achieved.
> 
> Several members of the executive voted against the deal – *including Socialist Worker supporter and CWU president Jane Loftus. *
> ...



Where are you getting your misinformation from?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 20, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The answer to that last line is in the preceeding one.



I'm glad that cockers clarified his two cents by saying that others 'have long since decided' that I speak gibberish rather than that I do - and in answer to his question I wouldn't come here unless it provided an unending source of amusement and distraction for me. As for butchers, though - I'd just like to say that you've got alot of gall here when I have repeatedly proven you have not one iota what it is exactly you're talking about. Funny how the last few arguments we've had had turned into semantics about what it is that was exactly meant, and in every one I've been the only person able to substantially define what the fuck the argument has been about.

Flippety-floppety, hippety-hoppety...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2007)

Ah, the preston pauper returns, with....what _exactly_ is that supposed to be?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 20, 2007)

Your inability to comprehend discussion knows no bounds!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 20, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Fisher_Gate is the basic tenets of the Galloway grouping the SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.



There is no "Galloway grouping", with or without "common tenets".  

Respect Renewal is simply composed of those people who want to take Respect forward.   This has proven impossible over the last two months with the SWP leadership thwarting every step.  If anyone in the SWP, or even the majority of the organisation, wants to change tack and be involved in that project they are quite welcome to work with others in Renewal to that end.  No-one has been expelled or excluded from Respect, contrary to the claims of the SWP, and SWP members were welcome to make their points at the Renewal conference.  The Renewal project does include the central view that the 'Respect' conference in Westminster last Saturday was not legitimately constituted and therefore does not represent the continuity of Respect.  Hopefully we can avoid this being dragged through the courts, which is why those members of the NC who support the Renewal statement have sought to negotiate with the SWP, only to be rebuffed. 

Since a significant portion of those committing to Renewal were members of the SWP until the last two months, it is fairly obvious that there will not be a common view about what preceded it; and in any case it is irrelevant to taking Respect forward. 

The positions on Socialist Resistance on why the SWP had the wrong approach to Respect in the past, have been well documented most notably in the exchange between Alex Callinicos, Alan Thornett and Murray Smith in 2005.  
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?rubrique14
This is developed in the more recent analysis of the current crisis by Phil Hearse and Liam Macuaid.
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1330 

This is the view of one section of the Renewal supporters and may, or may not, be supported by others.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 20, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There is no "Galloway grouping", with or without "common tenets".
> 
> Respect Renewal is simply composed of those people who want to take Respect forward.   This has proven impossible over the last two months with the SWP leadership thwarting every step.  If anyone in the SWP, or even the majority of the organisation, wants to change tack and be involved in that project they are quite welcome to work with others in Renewal to that end.  No-one has been expelled or excluded from Respect, contrary to the claims of the SWP, and SWP members were welcome to make their points at the Renewal conference.  The Renewal project does include the central view that the 'Respect' conference in Westminster last Saturday was not legitimately constituted and therefore does not represent the continuity of Respect.  Hopefully we can avoid this being dragged through the courts, which is why those members of the NC who support the Renewal statement have sought to negotiate with the SWP, only to be rebuffed.
> 
> ...


right, I take it from that the party line From Respect Renewal isn't "the SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action."

okay just interested.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 20, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No it doesn't - it directly contradicts the SWP CC statement that i was basing my post on.You're saying the _poor performance_ in Preston is to be expected, they're saying it's a _great performance_ and one that needs to be studied and then copied by everyone else. Here's the CC thing again as you seem to have missed it:
> 
> _SWP branches like Preston ... have become vibrant because they have recruited young people and key activists out of the movement. There is no secret formula: the branches have fought hard to win people to our ideas and have created a culture of recruitment in their branches.
> ...
> In Preston ... older comrades and their organisers have recruited a new layer of activists. ... Lavalette ... plays a pivotal role guiding and developing our new members"_


thanks, sorry I missed it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Where are you getting your misinformation from?



As I understand it Groucho, Loftus did indeed vote against the deal at executive level but she has not been involved in campaigning for a No vote amongst the rank and file and has not, as far as I am aware, even called for one. She hasn't been touring meetings to call for a No vote and has overall been exceptionally quiet.

If you can give me details to the contrary, I would be interested.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 20, 2007)

In terms of Jane Loftus the reason she has done this is because when you voted no at the executive meeting you had to state if you were going to campaign for the no vote. If you didn't do this you aren't allowed to under union rules.

I really can't see why Jane Loftus didn't do this and it really isn't good that the President of the CWU, who is in the SWP, won't actively campaign for a no vote.

Uberdog if you really are finding this all a laugh then fair enough, but I suspect you are getting wound up by what you say in your posts. And I don't know why others enjoy winding you up to be honest, can't see the point. As for UD being middle class, I suspect most people on this board, and indeed on this thread, are also middle class and/or students.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 20, 2007)

I get wound up abit... but tbh that's part of the internet experience!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 21, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Ah, the preston pauper returns...



Please remember that like most of those who pop up with the "Preston Respect" label from the SWP, D_U does not actually live in Preston.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 21, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> right, I take it from that the party line From Respect Renewal isn't "the SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action."
> 
> okay just interested.



You can read one thing and say it means another!  Truly you have a great future ahead of you - maybe as a successor to the great John Rees one day?

Once again - there is no "party line" in Respect Renewal!  The SWP are quite welcome to support it.

What unites it is a desire to take forward Respect and an unwillingness to recognise the undemocratic sham that took place in Westminster on Saturday.  For an interesting report on how the SWP leadership have manouevred and alienated a large section of the base of non-SWP members in Respect, read the report from Cambridge on what happened to their conference 'delegates'.  See:
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/20...ce-report-by-steve-sweeney-cambridge-respect/
or
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/search/label/Cambridge Respect


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> You can read one thing and say it means another!  Truly you have a great future ahead of you - maybe as a successor to the great John Rees one day?
> 
> Once again - there is no "party line" in Respect Renewal!  The SWP are quite welcome to support it.
> 
> ...


Fisher, you are coming at this from the wrong angle, I have no desire whatsoever to misrepresent or misinterpreted you.  Read what you said, didn't really understand it, so throughout question.

I can see you are very keen on this idea of their not being a grouping, a party line, I guess that has some to do with the politics of the situation between your faction and SW faction.  Tell me what word I can use, and I will.

I'm just trying to ascertain the consensus viewpoint of the "whatever you want me to call it".  Would it be fair to say the consensus viewpoint is "the SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.".  If you don't know, you don't want to tell me for some reason, that's okay.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2007)

Fisher, regarding the blogs etc.  Well I remember SW being accused of being silent on the issue for 2 3 weeks after it was proposed John Rees should resign..  Well eventually the silence has broke, and things have been said.  Can't say I am shocked.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 21, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Please remember that like most of those who pop up with the "Preston Respect" label from the SWP, D_U does not actually live in Preston.



You're absolutely right, I live a whole 12 minute train-journey away.

This bull that I'm less 'Preston SWP' than anyone else is getting tired. Hell, even in internal party functions I'm referred to as from the Preston Branch.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right, I live a whole 12 minute train-journey away.
> 
> This bull that I'm less 'Preston SWP' than anyone else is getting tired. Hell, even in internal party functions I'm referred to as from the Preston Branch.



Shortly to become 'I'm refered to as the Preston Branch'.  Also using the contents of an SWP IB to prove your credibility might not be the wisest course of action...poor DU. Still beggars can't be choosers.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 21, 2007)

There are no contents from any internal bulletins I've quoted there - you must be hallucinating. I'm in the Preston SWP branch, I attend Preston SWP branch meetings as a member of the branch, I participate in Preston SWP activities. I am in Preston SWP.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 21, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> There are no contents from any internal bulletins I've quoted there - you must be hallucinating. I'm in the Preston SWP branch, I attend Preston SWP branch meetings as a member of the branch, I participate in Preston SWP activities. I am in Preston SWP.



What's the boundary then?  Chorley ... Burnley ... Southport ... Blackburn ... Blackpool ... Bolton ... Nelson ... Colne ... Accrington ...Lancaster?  if you called it 'Preston & District SWP' or 'Preston and Central Lancashire SWP' I could understand it ... but Preston is a defined City with a boundary (it's also a local authority and parliamentary constituency) and you don't live in any of them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> What's the boundary then?  Chorley ... Burnley ... Southport ... Blackburn ... Blackpool ... Bolton ... Nelson ... Colne ... Accrington ...Lancaster?  if you called it 'Preston & District SWP' or 'Preston and Central Lancashire SWP' I could understand it ... but Preston is a defined City with a boundary (it's also a local authority and parliamentary constituency) and you don't live in any of them.


by the same token, what would you call the Galloway faction? 

you have to be on a windup, surely?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 21, 2007)

I've stumbled upon the Land Registery site by mistake.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 21, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> What's the boundary then?  Chorley ... Burnley ... Southport ... Blackburn ... Blackpool ... Bolton ... Nelson ... Colne ... Accrington ...Lancaster?  if you called it 'Preston & District SWP' or 'Preston and Central Lancashire SWP' I could understand it ... but Preston is a defined City with a boundary (it's also a local authority and parliamentary constituency) and you don't live in any of them.



And exactly how many geographical branches does your precious ISG have and how accurate are their borders then? Oh I know, you'll say your not actually a member of the ISG - even though you defend every word they come out with. But then, you are the one who consistantly says that there is no such thing as a galloway faction, but consistantly toe the galloway line post split. Socialist Resistance is going to be turned into a respect newspaper (with a name change obviously), which I'm sure your broadly supportive of. TBH if I was going to take advice from someone on strategy and tactics, it wouldn't be from anyone who's political tradition in the uk had declined to the point of obscurity


----------



## nwnm (Nov 21, 2007)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13585

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13586

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13587

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13588


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 21, 2007)

tbh I think how active the SWP is in Preston is of more political significance than where exactly the individual members come from. Regardless, I'm in the Preston SWP branch.

If there was a Chorley SWP branch I'd be there too. All I'm trying to do is give the membership figures some grounding in reality. If you're gonna say that only members who live in Preston can be considered members of the branch then in reality you give a misleading impression as to how the SWP in Preston operates on the ground.


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2007)

you'd be in two branches at once?  That must be how the party comes to claim a membership of nigh on 6000


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 21, 2007)

It doesn't mean I have to be counted twice memberwise.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 22, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> It doesn't mean I have to be counted twice memberwise.



That only happens in Respect when it comes to claiming conference delegates.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 22, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> ...
> you have to be on a windup, surely?



No.  It's an important issue.  The SWP are opposed to building Respect where they live.  

Respect is regarded as a "united front of a special kind".  It's all explained in the Pre Conference Discussion Bulletin alongside the 'concentric circles' metaphor.

This means that they parachute their members in wherever it suits them, rather than systematically building Respect.  

I've leafleted my streets for Respect.  I've gone round my neighbour's houses asking them to sign nomination forms for Respect candidates (even though I live in a marginal Tory ward, I argued we should stand there).  I have limited time for political activities in my locality, so I prioritise and build Respect first and foremost.  And I have tried to do it where I live.  

Not so the SWP.  SWP members in Lancashire have not built Respect where they live.  

Two years ago the SWP claimed that a group of Labour councillors in Chorley were going to join Respect. Galloway was taken in by this and broadcast it at the Respect conference.  It never happened.  But I would put forward one reason why it never happened was because SWP members, who do live in Chorley as we know, have done nothing to build Respect in Chorley or anywhere else in Lancashire.  There was nothing for Labour Councillors to join. The only existence of Respect is in Preston.  

And you have to realise the culture and geography of Lancashire.  People who live in Blackburn, Chorley, Burnley, etc do not regard themselves as living in an outpost of Preston.  They do not shop in Preston, they do not (generally) go to meetings in Preston, they do not read the same local newspaper as people in Preston, their bins are not emptied by the same council as Preston, they regard themselves first and foremost as living in their town of Blackburn, Chorley, Burnley etc.  Those "people in Preston" might as well be in Manchester or Carlisle as far as they are concerned.

But bar one ward in Manchester, Preston is the only place in the whole of the North West (population 5 million)where Respect has been built consistently . 

Respect got a decent election result in Liverpool in 2006.  But the SWP refused to stand in 2007 for fear it detracted from parachuting people in to Preston.  

The same thing happened in Blackburn.  The Socialist Alliance was active in Blackburn.  They stood a candidate in Blackburn.  I went to a big meeting of the Socialist Alliance with Tariq Ali et al in 2001.  Craig Murray stood as an independent in Blackburn in 2005 - Respect nominally supported him.  But all the SWP wanted was to go to Preston, where one of their members was the candidate.  Some indepedent muslims came forward in 2006 when Jack Straw invited Condaleeza.  A trememendous demo was built.  They wanted to stand a Respect candidate and did.  There are (or were) SWP members in Blackburn.  

But they did not build Respect in Blackburn, there was no candidate in 2007, and an opportunity was frittered away.

Similarly in Burnley.  The Socialist Alliance stood in Burnley local elections.  I went to an SA meeting there with Liz Davies.  But Respect was never built, no elections were ever contested.

The SWP in Lancaster claimed there is no one in Lancaster interested in Respect.  They held a meeting two years ago, but no-one turned up, so they spend their time building UAF, leafletting and holding SWSS (and now Respect) meetings at the University, and yes, you guessed it ... going to Preston.  But there is a vibrant left in Lancaster (mostly composed of ex-SWP members).

You cannot build socialism in one ward (one ward of 5,000 people out of 5,000,000, it's a ludicrous idea).  You have to build it whereever you can.  An active Respect branch in every town in Lancashire would boost Respect in Preston.  It would break it out of the ghetto of being seen solely as a Preston thing.  A few more candidates in local elections would get more column inches in the local papers, improve credibility, win more people from Labour (who outside of Lancaster where the Greens are very strong are hegemonic in Lancashire).

That's the culture that Galloway attacked in his August letter to the NC, and it questions the whole way the SWP relate to Respect, which is why they, stupidly, went nuclear.

So when SWP members keep popping up saying they are "from Preston" when it isn't true,  I get angry, very angry (though I do not accuse them of being "fucking dickwats" or whatever the latest moronic epithet is).  I think my anger has some justification.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> There are no contents from any internal bulletins I've quoted there - you must be hallucinating. I'm in the Preston SWP branch, I attend Preston SWP branch meetings as a member of the branch, I participate in Preston SWP activities. I am in Preston SWP.



Apologies it wasn't an IB but an 'internal party function' (makes it sound like a bowel movement); a chat between two SWPers is obviously much more convincing. Poor DU.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## lewislewis (Nov 22, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> In my own Respect branch we include a former Plaid Cymru councillor, an ex-communist party member, the Vice-Chair of PCS Wales, the publicity officer for Cardiff UNISON, three union branch secretaries and have recruited a few young union reps who are below 30 + students, unemployed, artists, musicians, visionaries, revolutionaries and school students.



Why don't you form a proper Socialist Party then instead of pretending you're part of some trendy East London Galloway project. Call it the Welsh Socialist Party. You could be the Convenor and in later years they would erect a statue of Udo Erasmus in Cardiff near the Bevan one. It'd be fun.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 22, 2007)

As for councillors from Chorley, that was never said; what was said was that was a group of Labour members (and some councillors) willing to consider working with us - and an independant candidate standing in Chorley who they had close links to.

I remember Galloway's comments and I remember at the time not knowing to which councillors from a 'Northern Town' he may have been referring to - but if it was Chorley then the information he recieved was down to a case of Chinese Whispers.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 22, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> As for councillors from Chorley, that was never said; what was said was that was a group of Labour members (and some councillors) willing to consider working with us - and an independant candidate standing in Chorley who they had close links to.
> 
> I remember Galloway's comments and I remember at the time not knowing to which councillors from a 'Northern Town' he may have been referring to - but if it was Chorley then the information he recieved was down to a case of Chinese Whispers.



Curious isn't it that the press release quoting Galloway from that speech has disappeared from the SWP-Respect website?  The page ref was respectcoalition.org/?ite=930

But it's more a case of false optimism than Chinese Whispers.  Lavalette certainly put it around that there would be a group of defectors from Chorley, and you have confirmed it was true, but no concrete steps (like advocating building a Respect branch in Chorley) ever happened.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 22, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> No.  It's an important issue.  The SWP are opposed to building Respect where they live.
> 
> Respect is regarded as a "united front of a special kind".  It's all explained in the Pre Conference Discussion Bulletin alongside the 'concentric circles' metaphor.
> 
> ...


I get it now.  Galloway respect want to go for the scattergun approach,  SW respect wanted to use the concentrated fire approach, build some basis in areas as a bridgehead.  And so the Galloway respect believe SW respect just want to parachute into smaller controlled areas because "the SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.".

Got to say, after my experience in the Socialist Alliance and watching the fascists and initial attempts to make breakthroughs, I have leaned towards the concentrated fire approach from the before SW actually turned to that.

Edited to add.  got to say my opinion as an outsider, it seems to me it is Galloway respect who have failed to build.  The reason SW argued Socialist Alliance should subsume its membership into respect, was because it would open up the project to a far bigger audience.  I have always sat on the fence as to whether respect it is a good bad thing for revolutionary socialists strategy (and so the working-class), it could only have been a good thing if the non-SW membership outnumbered the SW membership by at LEAST 10 to one.  IF anybody, Galloway and the reformists have failed to do that.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 22, 2007)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> Why don't you form a proper Socialist Party then instead of pretending you're part of some trendy East London Galloway project. Call it the Welsh Socialist Party.



Oi, that name's taken  (well sort of...)


http://www.socialistpartywales.org.uk/


----------



## nwnm (Nov 22, 2007)

then there's Cymru goch - the Welsh socialists

the Welsh Republican Socialist party

Oh and there were two seperate Welsh Socialist Alliances, one which really existed and one which came later and was largely a figment of someones imagination (it was floated as a suggestioon amongst peaceniks, many of whom thought it was a good idea but who really couldn't be arsed organising anything).

And lets not forget the Welsh Social Forum...


----------



## nwnm (Nov 23, 2007)

*Respect Renewal - 6 hours of SWP bashing*

9 SWP members intervened at the Respect  Renewal Rally. The event could well have been subtitled "bash the SWP". Despite George Galloway and others pledging that the day would not be dominated by the SWP the next six hours were pretty much packed with our various crimes. The basic line was this. The SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.The party was accused at various times of Islamophobia <sic> of meeting in secret and having its own "line" and of using bureaucratic methods and intimidation to control the organisation. A little example of the mood amongst some was that one speaker attacked Lindsey German as the candidate for mayor (nobody mentioned that 300 Respect members had elected her as candidate until we did) and got a great round of applause for arguing Boris Johnson would be preferable. At no time (other than in the two three minute contributions we were allowed) did anybody acknowledge that there might be any real argument about the course Respect had been taking or that heaven forbid George or anyone other than the SWP may have made some mistakes that have affected Respect's development. The SWP had apparently played no positive role in Respect except perhaps at it's earliest point. Some in the audience were unhappy with all this. Many people argued in one to one conversations that a split should be avoided and a united conference held. But this was effectively the birth of a new political party as far as the top table was concerned. Activists were given a strategy to "deal" with the SWP and those who might sympathise with us. They were told "Where possible new branches of "Respect Renewal" should be set up. Where the SWP and "sympathisers" dominated a branch there should be an attempt to win the "middle ground" in order to split later. "And where the SWP was in a minority the idea was to push to marginalise them, pull the "best" people and over time push those loyal to their own party out. The speed of this process would depend on the relative strengths involved. Sadly some of the most vicious attacks on us came from five or six ex SWP members. One thing that's worth noting is the absence of any serious trade unionists and the complete absence of students. Anybody who was unsure about  whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that hall for six hours. But it's worth remembering that even in such an atmosphere there were many people who were against a break, unsure of what was happening or who didn't want to face what was being outlined...a Respect without the SWP. The top table had to work very hard to whip up the mood against us.Many people were open to a political argument about the future even if the top table had set their face against us. Just to repeat: Galloway is arguing for his supporters to set up a completely new organisation "Respect Renewal" in some areas. One important thing came out of the Respect Renewal meeting - In others they are being urged to carry out a more "flexible" strategy.  Where they think they are strong - Birmingham South - they intend to drive us out. In other areas where they are weaker - Bristol, Manchester North and Southwark they intend to break up Respect groups.


----------



## belboid (Nov 23, 2007)

bejesus - have you heard of not repeating yerself?!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 23, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I get it now.  Galloway respect want to go for the scattergun approach,  SW respect wanted to use the concentrated fire approach, build some basis in areas as a bridgehead.  ...



No you don't "get it".  Who said anything about a scattergun approach?  The North West is a region of 5 million people - bigger than the whole of Scotland.  There are 75 parliamentary seats, 81% of which are Labour; there are 43 local authority areas every single one of which had elections in May 2007, so all 5 million people had a vote.  

Respect's first national electoral outing was in June 2004 when it contested the Euro elections and gained nearly 25,000 votes across the North West as "Respect (George Galloway)" (may I remind you).  

Where had it got by May 2007, nearly 3 years on?  

Just *two* areas were contested - Preston 1,904 votes and Manchester 535 votes.

In the 2004 Euros, Preston and Manchester came top of voting, the other results that were "above average" (ie where Respect could have *targeted* votes because the 'recognition factor' for the Respect/Galloway name was higher than average) were:

Local authority area, number of votes, proportion of votes
Blackburn with Darwen	1426	2.9%
Bolton	1778	2.2%
Liverpool	2192	1.9%
Rochdale	882	1.4%
Trafford	918	1.3%
Burnley	403	1.3%
Bury	833	1.3%
Pendle	405	1.2%
Oldham	852	1.2%

Respect stood in Blackburn and Liverpool in 2006 with good initial results (12% and 11%), but the SWP vehemently opposed running there in 2007.

Originally the SWP actually voted even to bind Preston Respect to not standing in Riversway ward, Preston.  This was the second best ward in Preston, with 26% of the vote in 2006.  Together with Town Centre ward it also forms a County Council division up for election in 2009.  Most significantly, Muslims in Riversway ward are a much smaller minority than other wards in Preston, there are less muslims than Hindus and it is the site of one the largest Hindu Temples in England.  But the SWP argued that standing would detract from getting Lavalette elected (the SWP members who argued against standing were from outside Preston, by the way, while those in favour were ex labour from Preston, including 2 former labour councillors).  The SWP however wanted to stand in University ward, for obvious reasons.  In the event, wiser counsel prevailed and the SWP deigned to put up Respect candidates in both University and Riversway, with an increase in the vote to 28% in Riversway, but just 37 votes in University (you need ten people to nominate a candidate).

If the national membership figures of the SWP are to believed, then the pro rata membership of the SWP in the North West would be *around 500 members*.

Are you seriously suggesting that this is a 'concentrated fire'?  It seems to me it was more like 'serious dereliction of duty'!  

I argued in my post for setting up branches in every major Lancashire town where there were members (5 of them all with at least 10 Respect members/supporters) and 'a few more' local candidates.  I don't think you can call that a 'scattergun approach'.  

Unfortunately this was not a "Galloway" approach either.  Most of the Respect national council went along with Rees and the SWP's 'concentrated fire' approach, but have since realised that it does very little to build Respect as a serious national force.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 23, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> ..... Anybody who was unsure about  whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that hall for six hours. ...



Err, but they weren't allowed to were they?  Only SWP CC members and hardened cadre were allowed to attend for fear of contamination.





> To The Socialist Workers Party
> 
> I have been a member of the SWP for three years. I became involved in politics and the SWP as a result of the war in Iraq. I stood for Respect in the 2007 election in Palfrey ward getting 14% of the vote, coming third, and beating the Lib Dems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 23, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> ...One thing that's worth noting is the .... the complete absence of students.



yeah complete absence of young people at all by the look of it


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 23, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> No you don't "get it".  Who said anything about a scattergun approach?  The North West is a region of 5 million people - bigger than the whole of Scotland.  There are 75 parliamentary seats, 81% of which are Labour; there are 43 local authority areas every single one of which had elections in May 2007, so all 5 million people had a vote.
> 
> Respect's first national electoral outing was in June 2004 when it contested the Euro elections and gained nearly 25,000 votes across the North West as "Respect (George Galloway)" (may I remind you).
> 
> ...


Sorry, again no offence intended.  You seem to take everything quite literally, and as an attack.

My terms concentrated fire and scattergun approach we're just broadbrush descriptions, which I think you did understand.  And it does seem you appear to agree this is the difference between respect Galloway and respect SW.  You may be very well right that your approach may be better.

You say "Are you seriously suggesting that this is a 'concentrated fire'?  It seems to me it was more like 'serious dereliction of duty'!  " Why in your opinion did the serious dereliction of duty take place?  What was the consensus view as to why this took place?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 23, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Sorry, again no offence intended.  You seem to take everything quite literally, and as an attack.
> 
> My terms concentrated fire and scattergun approach we're just broadbrush descriptions, which I think you did understand.  And it does seem you appear to agree this is the difference between respect Galloway and respect SW.  You may be very well right that your approach may be better.
> 
> You say "Are you seriously suggesting that this is a 'concentrated fire'?  It seems to me it was more like 'serious dereliction of duty'!  " Why in your opinion did the serious dereliction of duty take place?  What was the consensus view as to why this took place?



As I understand it there was general consensus on both wings of Respect to ditch the concentrated fire strategy. The idea was that focusing energies on getting key people elected in winnable seats would help build the organisation elsewhere by raising it's profile and credibility as an electoral party. For example, the only way Respect could match the Labour electoral machine in Bethnal Green and Tower Hamlets was the SWP machine throwing all it's weight and activists into the area.
It was generally accepted that this strategy had served it's usefulness and it was now important to start standing Respect candidates in a much wider number of seats to raise the national profile of Respect.
As I understand it, the SWP are now in favour of a more scattergun approach (I may be wrong?), as evidenced in their citing of Ray Holmes result as proof that there are no "no-go areas" for Respect and are accusing Respect Renewed of thinking that Respect can only win in a limited number of seats.

Interestingly, there is a report of Raghib Ahsan (ex-IMG) speaking at a meeting on the Respect (unrenewed) website, does this mean that he isn't alligned with the Salma Yaqoob faction in Birmingham Respect?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 23, 2007)

thanks for that.  So what is the difference between the two factions with regard to "the way forward"?

I am a bit of an outsider myself, haven't been involved much with SW over the last five years, so not up to speed.  Speaking from that limited perspective, it seems to me after years of, quite rightly, defending Galloway and many of the others regardless of the political cost of the party, for them to start now mounting a public attack upon SW may have something to do with split.

it does seems to me there is little point carrying on.  Big Brother is still a problem credibility wise, and this latest fiasco just compounds the lack of credibility.  I can't really see how SW can carry on with their own version of respect.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 24, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> it does seems to me there is little point carrying on.  Big Brother is still a problem credibility wise, and this latest fiasco just compounds the lack of credibility.  I can't really see how SW can carry on with their own version of respect.



well what option is there- you have the GLA Elections next May- with a very favourable election system whcih nearly got Respect in. What you have had is a small percentage of members leaving- leaving probably 90% of members loyal to Respect. all that has goen on has been kept out of the media, in the whole- so i cant see why the idea- business as usual- isnt a god a strategy as any


----------



## JimPage (Nov 24, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Where had it got by May 2007, nearly 3 years on?
> Just *two* areas were contested - Preston 1,904 votes and Manchester 535 votes.
> .



i would put part of this down to the necessity of antifascist work as a priority for the SWP in the North West. You cant stand for election if you have fascists to stop first. However- , as you say, with atleast 500 SWP in the northwest i cant see why they cousl not have done both

Andyway- there is a by election in Preston Tulketh ward on December 20th - where BNP are standing. I hope this has not gone un- noticed....


----------



## Nigel (Nov 24, 2007)

Can't beleive thisa thread is still going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What next for the SWP
If I was them I'd go back to basics, keep paper saless going. Rank and File Union Work.

But alas no??????

I think that the stormtroopers of death might be the next peice of Hysteria:
NAZIS  

After being a fly on the wall at a recent UAF meeting!!!!!!


----------



## Zeppo (Nov 24, 2007)

Not here to gloat. I know of a lot of good SWP activists, involved in a variety of initiatives. However, how many have been expelled or have resigned due to the Respect shenanigens?

I have seen a figure of 500 but can not believe that. In terms of democracy - an important word for SWP a la Respect - will we ever see the figures on expulsions/resignations?


----------



## cutandsplice (Nov 24, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> *i would put part of this down to the necessity of antifascist work as a priority for the SWP in the North West. You cant stand for election if you have fascists to stop first. *QUOTE]
> You are joking here? The SWP haven't prioritised anti-fascism in any real sense since 1979.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 25, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Andyway- there is a by election in Preston Tulketh ward on December 20th - where BNP are standing. I hope this has not gone un- noticed....



Of course not ... SWP Respect have already announced they are standing ... but Linda Smith has to approve any nomination of course


----------



## mk12 (Nov 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> yeah complete absence of young people at all by the look of it



4


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 25, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> 4



complete absence?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 25, 2007)

Please Fisher; this is undignified even by _your_ usual level of pedantry.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 25, 2007)

Don't know what's worse. This or the SPGB thread.......

And does anyone wonder why the far left in the UK is a complete laughing stock?


----------



## nwnm (Nov 25, 2007)

Thats obvious, its because they have yet to follow from your far more superior programme of er... splitting from those bastions of ultra leftism, Workers Power


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 25, 2007)

The difference is nwmn is unlike your total and unquestioning devotion to the SWP I don't hold PR up as the true way forward or the best thing since sliced bread.

Whether you like it or not the SWP has been even more discredited by this (and shrunk even further into the bargain) and the far left been made to look even more of a joke.


----------



## JimPage (Nov 25, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Of course not ... SWP Respect have already announced they are standing ... but Linda Smith has to approve any nomination of course



I am taking from this that SWP- respect forgot to remove her as Respect Nominating Officer? Hope even if this is the case- both bots of respect can nominate soemone not on either side to stand


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 25, 2007)

JimPage said:
			
		

> I am taking from this that SWP- respect forgot to remove her as Respect Nominating Officer? Hope even if this is the case- both bots of respect can nominate soemone not on either side to stand



The SWP do not 'forget' these things.  They choose to take a diplomatic silence.  They know they cannot forcibly remove her as Respect Nominating Officer.  Only a properly constituted National Committee, elected by a properly constituted National Conference can do that. If they try to pursue it legally they know they will be laughed out of court; the evidence that less than ten paid up members were used as the basis of 8 delegates at the self-styled 'conference' on 17th November is already in the public domain.

They have known this all along, which makes their previous chucking of their toys out of the pram and refusal to negotiate on these matters all the more pathetic.  Clearly they will have to negotiate now.

As to whether there should be a candidate and, if so, who it should be, maybe a properly constituted Respect branch selection meeting with all members given notice and invited would be a good idea?

There is of course the obvious danger that a Respect candidate for a highly marginal ward it has not previously contested and with no base would be most likely to result in fifth place, and assist either the Tories or even the BNP (who were in a dangerous third place last time they contested this ward) to take this seat from Labour.

I understand that the Labour candidate is a previous councillor who was in the minority of the Labour Group who voted for both Lavalette's motion to twin Preston with Palestine in 2003 and for his motion in 2006 to oppose nuclear warheads being brought into Preston by the Government/reaffirm the policy of supporting a Nuclear Free Preston.  Since the Preston Labour Party and City Council Group also oppose publicly the opening of an Academy and another Labour councillor for the ward shared a platform with Lavalette on the Anti Academies Alliance it makes it hard to see what will be achieved by a candidate other than risk letting in the BNP.  The students, who make up a sizable proportion of this ward, will all be away on 20 December as well (if indeed the election is on this date, as I haven't seen that confirmed on the Council website yet).


----------



## mk12 (Nov 25, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The difference is nwmn is unlike your total and unquestioning devotion to the SWP I don't hold PR up as the true way forward or the best thing since sliced bread.
> 
> Whether you like it or not the SWP has been even more discredited by this (and shrunk even further into the bargain) and the far left been made to look even more of a joke.



I doubt anyone outside the far left have even noticed what's gone in with the SWP/Respect. I wouldn't worry.


----------



## Mr T (Nov 25, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Not here to gloat. I know of a lot of good SWP activists, involved in a variety of initiatives. However, how many have been expelled or have resigned due to the Respect shenanigens?
> 
> I have seen a figure of 500 but can not believe that.



Divide that by 50 and you'd probably be closer to the mark


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 25, 2007)

Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> Please Fisher; this is undignified even by _your_ usual level of pedantry.



Not at all.  Socialist Worker said "complete absence of students".  All I did was put up a picture showing that there were young people there which I think is what they meant.

A pedant would argue that it is perfectly possible that some of the people there who were over 21 could have been students - some students are in their 30's, 40's and 50's you know.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 25, 2007)

> I doubt anyone outside the far left have even noticed what's gone in with the SWP/Respect. I wouldn't worry.



I agree. But for those few people who have noticed it has discredited the far left yet still further.



> Divide that by 50 and you'd probably be closer to the mark



Are you seriously suggesting that RESPECT has only lost 10 members over this? Come on.


----------



## nwnm (Nov 25, 2007)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The difference is nwmn is unlike your total and unquestioning devotion to the SWP I don't hold PR up as the true way forward or the best thing since sliced bread.
> 
> Whether you like it or not the SWP has been even more discredited by this (and shrunk even further into the bargain) and the far left been made to look even more of a joke.



sense of humour transplant needed me thinks....


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 26, 2007)

If you were funny then that might be the case......


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 26, 2007)

First of all Socialist Alliance was basically a coalition of left groups and independents.  There were some of the reformist variety, and some to the left of Socialist Worker.  Socialist worker basically argued, "we have already got a revolutionary organisation, Socialist Worker, so we don't need another one.  What we don't have is "Old Labour" for all those people who want such an organisation deserted by New Labour.  That is what Socialist Worker wanted the Socialist Alliance to be.  So there were many in the Socialist Alliance who were antagonistic to Socialist worker because Socialist worker consistently made the Socialist Alliance reflective of reformist viewpoints, and somewhere where reformists could feel comfortable.  Socialist Worker could just vote these things through because we had the most members, plus those to the right of us.  One example.  It was proposed that part of the Socialist Alliance manifesto would advocate the disarming of the police, Socialist Worker voted this down.  Many felt unfairly treated by this and wanted minority groups, mostly those to the harder left than Socialist worker, voting rights that would give them greater say over the direction of Socialist Alliance disproportionate to their numerical standing in the coalition.  (I think The Socialist Party left the Socialist Alliance over this)  Many people also believed that Socialist worker was deserting its revolutionary tradition.

The anti-war movement.  Some in the Socialist Alliance bitterly disagreed with the emphasis and amount of effort Socialist worker put into the anti-war movement.  They felt Socialist worker should have concentrated on building the Socialist Alliance.  Because of the war and the anti-war movement George Galloway left Labour Party, but he wasn't prepared to join the Socialist Alliance, and set up his own group.  Socialist work argued it was stupid of the left to have two coalitions basically going after the same vote.  Socialist Worker approached the George Galloway group about uniting the coalitions, but they would only agree to Socialist Alliance subsuming into respect.

This was put to conference of the Socialist Alliance.  Socialist Worker made every effort to pull out all the stops to win the vote for uniting the two coalitions.  Once again they used their numeric advantage, and many people accuse them of "packing meetings".  There was indeed much bitterness about packing meetings, which basically means you organise better and get more people to turn up and vote for what you want.  There was much bitterness that the Socialist Alliance, that many people had put a lot of hard work into, would cease to exist.  However, the vote was won and the vast majority of the Socialist Alliance subsumed its mentorship into respect.  

So it isn't really true to say the Socialist Alliance "foundered when non-SWP member parties could not accept the conditions laid down by the SWP."  it didn't really founder, it was subsumed into respect.  Those who disagreed with the subsuming, still keep a version of the Socialist Alliance going (very small indeed).  It was those to the hard left who seemed most antagonistic to the things Socialist Worker argued for in the Socialist Alliance.  "the conditions (SW) laid down" as you put it , were keeping Socialist Alliance as a reformist Organisation which I think you would have agreed with.  Lastly I think most of the non-Socialist Worker members who were in Socialist Alliance joined respect.
So in short Socialist Alliance didn't founder, it did the right thing and became part of a bigger coalition, a coalition that has had much more success than the Socialist Alliance ever did, and more success than any organisation to the left of the Labour Party in a hundred years.
Respect.  Many would argue, quite right where in my opinion, That the Socialist Work members and nonmembers who split from the Socialist Alliance, (I'm not sure you can really call it a split because the vast majority of people agreed to subsume the organisation into respect), but for arguments sake those people who left to join respect did so to make the coalition a more right wing reformist Organisation, rather than a revolutionary organisation.  George Galloway's faction has recently done the same thing, except that they have done it without a vote.  I think it is fair to call what they have done a split, without a vote mandate.

The website you quote from its correct in that Socialist worker wanted respect to be a mass organisation.  However, unfortunately Socialist worker was still probably the biggest grouping in respect.  Respect has not recruited onto the membership as many as we would have liked.  To be anywhere near successful, I would have put it and I think most of Socialist worker would have said, the members of respect non-SWP would have needed to outnumber SWP 10 to one.  That would have been a success.

There has been a number of issues, Big Brother, the claims of oil money, and our whole number of other it accusations made against George Galloway and other members of respect Which Socialist Worker has consistently and without public criticism defended  Where we have agreed we did not agree with these actions, we have defended our selves by saying we cannot be held responsible for people with different views in a coalition.  Coalitions demand that you allow other people to have different views.  

Now as far as I understand it, it is agreed respect has not grown as big as we would like, but George Galloway's faction wanted to put the blame for this With Socialist Worker.  They demanded John Reese resigned his office, think it was national secretary, and when Socialist worker refused to be held responsible for this and to have John resign, the Galloway faction said they intended to produce a public document criticising Socialist Worker.  As far as I understand it Socialist Worker was prepared to discuss changes in tactics in the way forward and criticisms of Socialist worker as part of the internal coalition discussion, but was not prepared to be publicly attacked after spending so much time defending members of the coalition from public attack.  Socialist Worker felt this could do nothing, the public attack, other than weaken respect.

In short, I think the Galloway faction may have had some worthy criticisms of Socialist worker, but equally Socialist work could have made some worthy criticisms of Galloway and other members of the respect coalition. The difference being we chose to try and resolve these differences within the coalition. Why Galloway chose to make his public attack is up for discussion, I personally feel his former hatred of Socialist Worker made him a bit paranoid about Socialist workers intentions. It led him to the deluded belief that Socialist worker wanted to control respect, and so he wanted to provoke them to walk.
Why do I think the belief Socialist Worker wanted to control respect is the deluded?  In a crude way the original writers observation Socialist worker wanted to recruit from a MASS organisation is correct.  In the short term membership of respect has actually had a deleterious effect upon the number of members in Socialist worker.  Socialist worker thought this was a price worth paying for being part of a organisation that was thoroughly rooted amongst the working class.  An organisation in which Socialist worker could argue for its strategies, which could be accepted or rejected by the non-revolutionaries socialists, and which could be measured as successful or unsuccessful in United action.  But first of all we needed to make it a MASS organisation.  By definition if respect was as we wanted it to be a MASS organisation, then by definition it would be something we couldn't control.  Numerically we would be outnumbered.  And that is exactly what we always wanted.
I haven't been an active member for several years now, but that is how I understand events.

[reproduced reply]


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 26, 2007)

There are so many factual errors and distoritions in this - it is unworthy of you.

The most important is this one




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> ... They demanded John Reese resigned his office, think it was national secretary, and when Socialist worker refused to be held responsible for this and to have John resign, the Galloway faction said they intended to produce a public document criticising Socialist Worker.  ...
> ...



Completely untrue - if you know otherwise then say Who, Where, When?





			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> ... As far as I understand it Socialist Worker was prepared to discuss changes in tactics in the way forward and criticisms of Socialist worker as part of the internal coalition discussion, but was not prepared to be publicly attacked after spending so much time defending members of the coalition from public attack. Socialist Worker felt this could do nothing, the public attack, other than weaken respect.



Again this is completely untrue.  

Just to recap.  The only people who attacked others in public were the SWP.  

Their members (specifically 2 councillors in Tower Hamlets plus 2 others very close to the SWP) issued a press release denouncing the leader of the Respect group on the Council, splitting from this group and forming their own 'Independent' group on the Council with their own structure, leadership etc - this story was carried by the local press in Tower Hamlets and of course by the official Tower Hamlets website.  They then called a press conference with the national press to explain the reasons why, a press conference attended by the leader of the LibDem group on the council (with whom they had been having secret negotiations about the possibility of forming an opposition coalition) and arranged by the National Secretary of Respect.  They also called a public meeting in Tower Hamlets without the authorisation of the Branch Committee.  They also made public unspecified allegations of 'sexist harassment' about the leadership of the TH Respect Group - something they have never taken to any committee or meeting in Respect, despite the fact that they are very well represented on all these bodies.

The SWP *claimed* that Galloway was going to the press to denounce them, in a cynical attempt to whip up their members to sign their petition for 'unity' and 'against the witch hunt of socialists'.  In fact Galloway never went to the press and never had any intention of doing so.

All this is public knowledge and verifiable.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Now as far as I understand it, it is agreed respect has not grown as big as we would like, but George Galloway's faction wanted to put the blame for this With Socialist Worker.  They demanded John Reese resigned his office, think it was national secretary, and when Socialist worker refused to be held responsible for this and to have John resign, the Galloway faction said they intended to produce a public document criticising Socialist Worker.  As far as I understand it Socialist Worker was prepared to discuss changes in tactics in the way forward and criticisms of Socialist worker as part of the internal coalition discussion, but was not prepared to be publicly attacked after spending so much time defending members of the coalition from public attack.  Socialist Worker felt this could do nothing, the public attack, other than weaken respect



Factually this is drivel. Hiw many other 'comrades' 'understand' it this way. You've cleasrly learnt nothing from this, just open up and swallow.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 26, 2007)

God! butchersapronyou are so arrogant, are you sure you are not middle-class?



			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Factually this is drivel. Hiw many other 'comrades' 'understand' it this way. You've cleasrly learnt nothing from this, just open up and swallow.


swallow what?  Haven't been an active member, read socialist work, Socialist review, international socialist journal, or spoke to a member in several years.so it would be pretty hard for me to swallow anything which is being propagated by socialist worker. (edited to add, sorry I may have done the time, but not much over several years.) got what I have got from just reading between the lines what has been sent here and other places (non-Socialist worker), and what I know from my own experience several years ago.  However, I am prepared to accept I maybe wrong, what I am saying maybe drivle, because I'm not arrogant as you.
Edited to add.  I just noticed you said "FACTUALLY drivel".  What about the essence?  Isn't it true that the Galloway faction believe SW wants to control respect?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 26, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There are so many factual errors and distoritions in this - it is unworthy of you.
> 
> The most important is this one
> 
> ...


 like I said, just going off what I've read on here and elsewhere.  All second hand knowledge.

Earlier in the thread somebody said there was a telephone conversation with John Rees said something like SW might as well walk away.  What was this into response to?

edited to add
what I'm trying to make sense of his motives.  The idea that Socialist worker would want to have as much influence as possible of respect, by demonstrating in United actions their tactics were best for the movement is without doubt.  But the idea that they think they could achieve this by "controlling from the top down" respect, is illogical to everything I've heard in 20 years.  It is everything SW spent at least 10 years explaining why it was the wrong tactics for the Communist Party.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 26, 2007)

If there was a vote of who is the most ruthless politically between Galloway and Rees then it wouldn't be too difficult to bet on who the winner would be.

It was Galloway thinking that an election would be called by Brown in October that led him to move against the SWP. This is no suprise, as Galloway has utter loathing for trots of all kinds.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 26, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> like I said, just going off what I've read on here and elsewhere.  All second hand knowledge.
> 
> Earlier in the thread somebody said there was a telephone conversation with John Rees said something like SW might as well walk away.  What was this into response to?
> 
> ...




Yes it is illogical.  Why do you think people of the character of Jerry Hicks have resigned from the SWP.

The conversation you are trying to recall is this one.



> On Monday 22 October John Rees rang Alan Thornett at 9.00 that evening to ask Alan if it was correct that a document critical of the SWP was being prepared. Alan confirmed that it was correct. When asked if it would be signed by many members of the National Council, Alan confirmed that it would be. John Rees’s response to this was, “in that case, the SWP might as well call it a day”. Alan asked, “Do you mean that you would walk away from Respect?” John Rees replied, “What would be the point, any more?”



This report came from Alan Thornett and has never been denied by John Rees.  The SWP however have denied they were planning to split Respect.  However the report from Thornett et al goes on to explain:



> On Wednesday 24 October Alan Thornett phoned John Rees to ask for a meeting between the two sides. John Rees agreed to meet the following day (Thursday 25 October) and agreed that the basis of the meeting would be to discuss an “amicable separation”.
> 
> In the days preceding this phone call, an independent and respected friend of both sides had offered to mediate in any discussions. It was agreed that this ‘mutual friend’ should be asked to chair the negotiation.
> 
> ...



Note that at the time the SWP insisted on keeping these discussions confidential.

The second meeting discussed the arrangements for the seperation and agreed to a third meeting.  However on Monday 29 October the SWP went public by calling a press conference in Bishopsgate and called off the negotiations believing that they could rig the conference to pack it with their supporters as delegates.


----------



## PaulOK (Nov 27, 2007)

Nigel said:
			
		

> At least Tony Cliff was a better comedian than Mark Steel




Better with Hecklers as well - I remember some political soldier NF types (complete with Celtic Cross lapel badges) turned up to a SWP branch meeting about 20 or so years ago and started barracking him. The air turned blue I can tell you! This little elderly guy with an Israeli accent exhorted us to "cut their f*cking throats"! Very funny!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 27, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Yes it is illogical.


thanks.


> The conversation you are trying to recall is this one.
> On Monday 22 October John Rees rang Alan Thornett at 9.00 that evening to ask Alan if it was correct that a document critical of the SWP was being prepared. Alan confirmed that it was correct. When asked if it would be signed by many members of the National Council, Alan confirmed that it would be. John Rees’s response to this was, “in that case, the SWP might as well call it a day”. Alan asked, “Do you mean that you would walk away from Respect?” John Rees replied, “What would be the point, any more?”


thats how desrcibed it above. sw fracture in response to [2nd] document critical of the SWP.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 27, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> thanks.
> ...


 but still true.  That's why Jerry Hicks wouldn't go along with it.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 27, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> thanks.
> ... sw fracture in response to [2nd] document critical of the SWP.


  They said they would walk *before* the document came out.  

What sort of idea is it that you threaten to walk out of an organisation if anyone says anything critical of you?  

The nearest thing to public attacking of opponents within Respect was at the 2005 conference when the SWP denounced the ISG as islamophobic for putting a resolution on gay rights (and unfortunately Galloway joined the chase), but the ISG did not walk, they fought their corner.


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> It is everything SW spent at least 10 years explaining why it was the wrong tactics for the Communist Party.


yes, but that was when the CPGB were the dominant left of labour party. now that role is taken by the swp, they have changed their minds.  funny that, innit?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 27, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> They said they would walk *before* the document came out.
> 
> What sort of idea is it that you threaten to walk out of an organisation if anyone says anything critical of you?
> 
> The nearest thing to public attacking of opponents within Respect was at the 2005 conference when the SWP denounced the ISG as islamophobic for putting a resolution on gay rights (and unfortunately Galloway joined the chase), but the ISG did not walk, they fought their corner.


still thats how desrcibed it above. sw fracture in response to [2nd] document critical of the SWP when u said.






			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Completely untrue - if you know otherwise then say Who, Where, When?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 27, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> yes, but that was when the CPGB were the dominant left of labour party. now that role is taken by the swp, they have changed their minds.  funny that, innit?


if it were the case, no it wouldn't be "funny that, innit?" imo it would be bollocks.


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2007)

well, bollocks it is then


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 27, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> well, bollocks it is then


okay, I concede.  I can see I am faced with a giant amongst the debating fraternity.

PS.  Why would they want to control respect?for what gain?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 27, 2007)

> Salma Yaqoob’s (she did say to Rees that she thought the honourable thing for him to do was to resign, which is different).


http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/respect-forum-video-and-audio/
fair enough, in a pedantic way that is not the same as a call to resign, but it is irrelevant to the essence of what I was trying to say above.

Why would Salma Yaqoob’s  think the honourable thing for him to do was to resign?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 27, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> still thats how desrcibed it above. sw fracture in response to [2nd] document critical of the SWP when u said.



You're confusing two sets of events: the alleged claim that Galloway called for Rees' resignation, which is not true; Salma Yaqoob said at a meeting with the SWP in the first week in September following Galloway's "Best of times, Worst of Times ..." document, that Rees should "consider his position" - no-one demanded his resignation; and Rees' statement that if there was to be a document taken to the NC that was critical of the SWP, then they might as well call it a day and walk out, which was on 22 October.

The precise chronology (and documents from the non-SWP people involved) is available in the Socialist Resistance Pamphlet  "The Crisis in Respect and the Politics Behind It" downloadable here:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/fad610c1-7232-44f3-b64b-d5d97fb39d42/Respect-pamphlet


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 27, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Why would Salma Yaqoob’s  think the honourable thing for him to do was to resign?



Because he was not prepared to consider any criticism at all that the failure of Respect to grow in the previous two years, the "anathematisation" of Yaqoob described in Galloway's original letter, and the bad result at Ealing Southall might have something to do with the way he had conducted himself as National Secretary.


----------



## stylegar (Nov 27, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Because he was not prepared to consider any criticism at all that the failure of Respect to grow in the previous two years, the "anathematisation" of Yaqoob described in Galloway's original letter, and the bad result at Ealing Southall might have something to do with the way he had conducted himself as National Secretary.



Or, rather, it might have much to do with Galloway's big brother performance and some other minor incidences. But why let facts get in the way of your SWP bashing.


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> okay, I concede.  I can see I am faced with a giant amongst the debating fraternity.
> 
> PS.  Why would they want to control respect?for what gain?


since becoming 'the biggest/only force on the left' the SWP have adopted large numbers of old CP style tactics. Refusing to criticise 'friendly' union leaders, totally top down control of any organisation they are in, sudden about turns on matters of policy, they are but a rump of what they once were.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 27, 2007)

stylegar said:
			
		

> Or, rather, it might have much to do with Galloway's big brother performance and some other minor incidences. But why let facts get in the way of your SWP bashing.



Rees excused Galloway going on BB in public - Yaqoob (and Loach) criticised him for it.  If Rees had been unhappy about BB he could have done other things - like build support for Yaqoob.  Instead he refused to talk to Yaqoob and Socialist Worker attacked her (surreptitiously) because she preferred to see a local asian as candidate against an SWP full timer from outside.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> since becoming 'the biggest/only force on the left' the SWP have adopted large numbers of old CP style tactics. Refusing to criticise 'friendly' union leaders, totally top down control of any organisation they are in, sudden about turns on matters of policy, they are but a rump of what they once were.


you haven't answered the question though.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 28, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Rees excused Galloway going on BB in public - Yaqoob (and Loach) criticised him for it.  If Rees had been unhappy about BB he could have done other things - like build support for Yaqoob.  Instead he refused to talk to Yaqoob and Socialist Worker attacked her (surreptitiously) because she preferred to see a local asian as candidate against an SWP full timer from outside.



With due respect, this is a bit half-baked. Salma Yaqoob actually praised Galloway going on BB (probably with gritted teeth) on Question Time!

Rees I felt handled the media quite well in a pretty weird situation. He consistently tried to deflect discussion away from the specific issue of Galloway on BB onto Repect's policies of defending the NHS, opposing war and privatisation and used the odd platform that he was given to advertise Respect's pro-working class policies. He also advertised Galloway's record of anti-imperialism. In effect, I think his strategy was damage limitation.

Where I part company is I personally felt that afterwards, Rees and the SWP should have seized the opportunity to force GG to become more accountable. But I think that Rees was essentially being held to ransom by Galloway, I have got the impression that Galloway constantly bullied the SWP with the threat that he would just walk out of Respect if he didn't get his own way, certainly when John Rees visited our local branch and we made a few mild criticisms of GG post-BB, Rees seemed to be saying (to me) implicitly - he's not accountable to me, I have no control over what he does.

Certainly not a healthy situation - but I have seen no evidence that the unelected NC of Respect Renewal are going to make Galloway anymore accountable.


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> you haven't answered the question though.


well its a fairly bloody obvious answer tho - because they dont trust anyone else to lead it 'properly'.  eg GG will go and get into bed with muslim businessmen and turn it into a communalist organisation


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> You're confusing two sets of events: the alleged claim that Galloway called for Rees' resignation, which is not true; Salma Yaqoob said at a meeting with the SWP in the first week in September following Galloway's "Best of times, Worst of Times ..." document, that Rees should "consider his position" - no-one demanded his resignation; and Rees' statement that if there was to be a document taken to the NC that was critical of the SWP, then they might as well call it a day and walk out, which was on 22 October.
> 
> The precise chronology (and documents from the non-SWP people involved) is available in the Socialist Resistance Pamphlet  "The Crisis in Respect and the Politics Behind It" downloadable here:
> http://www.esnips.com/doc/fad610c1-7232-44f3-b64b-d5d97fb39d42/Respect-pamphlet


honestly mate, I am not confusing the two events, I am fully aware of the chronology of which you speak.  I am fully aware there was a series of attacks, including the "the worst of times the best of times", which led John Rees to make his remark in the telephone call.  But whether I am confused about the chronology or not is irrelevant to your assessment of my initial post being factually inaccurate.  The first point has been shown to be fully accurate, in line with the essence of what I meant to say.  The second point, the call for John Rees to resign is also accurate.  Salma Yaqoob’s did call on Rees to do the honourable thing, resign.

I have always been prepared to put my hands up and concede when I am wrong.  I am a human being, unlike butchers  , I make mistakes.  However so far I am satisfied that butchers remarks "Factually this is drivel."  nd your remarks "Completely untrue" are misguided.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2007)

belboid said:
			
		

> since becoming 'the biggest/only force on the left' the SWP have adopted large numbers of old CP style tactics. Refusing to criticise 'friendly' union leaders, totally top down control of any organisation they are in, sudden about turns on matters of policy, they are but a rump of what they once were.


so our refusal to criticise Arthur Scargill during and after the miners strike, and Derek Hatton during and after the attacks upon militant were due to what? if I was as arrogance as butchers, I would say you are speaking factual drivel, there is obviously nothing new about Socialist worker ensuring critique is fraternally and pragmatically based.

however, I do think some of the criticism is acceptable.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> They said they would walk *before* the document came out.
> 
> What sort of idea is it that you threaten to walk out of an organisation if anyone says anything critical of you?
> 
> The nearest thing to public attacking of opponents within Respect was at the 2005 conference when the SWP denounced the ISG as islamophobic for putting a resolution on gay rights (and unfortunately Galloway joined the chase), but the ISG did not walk, they fought their corner.


 well they didn't actually walk out the organisation, the George Galloway faction did. WHY?  because they weren't prepared to try and win the argument for "the way forward".  As I understand it George Galloway and his whole faction are welcome to rejoin respect.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 28, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> ....The second point, the call for John Rees to resign is also accurate.  Salma Yaqoob’s did call on Rees to do the honourable thing, resign.
> ...




but that's not what you said ... You said:



> "They *demanded* John Reese resigned his office"



No, they didn't!  Salma Yaqoob suggested if he had any integrity he would do the honourable thing - but that's not the same thing at all as *demanding* he resign.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> but that's not what you said ... You said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't!  Salma Yaqoob suggested if he had any integrity he would do the honourable thing - but that's not the same thing at all as *demanding* he resign.


 ok They asked John Reese resign his office.  and at this point I am sure all the other delegates from the George Galloway faction jumped up and said, Salma you go too far, yes?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 28, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> our refusal to criticise ...  Derek Hatton during and after the attacks upon militant



  "sold down the mersey" was the headline - your organistion simply attacked the entire movement in liverpool - not that many folk in liverpool noticed


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 28, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> well they didn't actually walk out the organisation, the George Galloway faction did. WHY?  because they weren't prepared to try and win the argument for "the way forward".  As I understand it George Galloway and his whole faction are welcome to rejoin respect.



They have NOT walked out of Respect.  They have refused to attend an illegitimate conference.  

The only people who walked away from Respect were four councillors, two of whom are SWP members, who publicly resigned the whip on Tower Hamlets Council, attacked the elected officers in the press(officers elected by the whole membership, not just the councillors) and established an 'Independent' group on the Council, with their own leader and deputy leader.  They then went into negotiations with the LibDems to form an opposition coalition on the Council against the Respect Group.  They have also refused to take up any of the issues that they claim led them to this step (eg claims about sexist harassment etc)  within the structure of Respect, despite being members of both the local branch committee and the National Council.  

The 19 members of the Respect national council who refused to attend the illegitimate conference derive their authority from their election at the last conference of Respect in 2006.  This includes the Chair (and technically the Leader and Nominating Officer), Vice Chair, the sole MP and they are supported by two thirds of the councillors.  When the SWP members of the National Council elected in 2006 are ready to resume normal behaviour they will happily meet with them to take forward Respect.  Sadly this is not likely to happen as the SWP now live in a fantasy world where the 46 people appointed at the illegitimate conference (60% of whom are in the SWP) are claiming to be Respect.  It's nonsense.


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> so our refusal to criticise Arthur Scargill during and after the miners strike, and Derek Hatton during and after the attacks upon militant were due to what?


eh?  what refusal?

where has the criticism of billy hayes been lately?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 28, 2007)

2 entertaining news snippets:

1) The SWP have finally removed their membership census from their website. It has been replaced by a brief list of prominent people and a single sentence saying that 1,139 others have signed the list. Do you think it finally dawned on someone in their office that it might not be the brightest idea in the world to have a list of their members names on their website?

2) According to comments on Socialist Unity, the SWP have set up an organisation within the Stop the War Coalition called the Muslim Network. This is, according to a couple of commenters, an organisation intended to hold the line against the existing Muslim organisations within the StWC, which have become more critical of the SWP.

The first meeting of the new Muslim Network was apparently chaired by Chris Nineham, not previously known for his adherence to Islamic beliefs.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 28, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ... Do you think it finally dawned on someone in their office that it might not be the brightest idea in the world to have a list of their members names on their website?
> ...



or that the fact that only 1,139 people have signed it, not all of whom are Respect members, when the SWP claim a membership of over 7,000 registered and unregistered, indicates what a bunch of liars they are?


----------



## brasicritique (Nov 28, 2007)

three men in a pub jealous of a fourth who owns a packet of pork scratchings so they ask him to get of there ttable 90% of the locals reckoned they were all losers anyway


----------



## stylegar (Nov 28, 2007)

Repeating lies and half-truths doesn't make them come true, you delusional dimwit.
 




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> They have NOT walked out of Respect.  They have refused to attend an illegitimate conference.
> 
> The only people who walked away from Respect were four councillors, two of whom are SWP members, who publicly resigned the whip on Tower Hamlets Council, attacked the elected officers in the press(officers elected by the whole membership, not just the councillors) and established an 'Independent' group on the Council, with their own leader and deputy leader.  They then went into negotiations with the LibDems to form an opposition coalition on the Council against the Respect Group.  They have also refused to take up any of the issues that they claim led them to this step (eg claims about sexist harassment etc)  within the structure of Respect, despite being members of both the local branch committee and the National Council.
> 
> The 19 members of the Respect national council who refused to attend the illegitimate conference derive their authority from their election at the last conference of Respect in 2006.  This includes the Chair (and technically the Leader and Nominating Officer), Vice Chair, the sole MP and they are supported by two thirds of the councillors.  When the SWP members of the National Council elected in 2006 are ready to resume normal behaviour they will happily meet with them to take forward Respect.  Sadly this is not likely to happen as the SWP now live in a fantasy world where the 46 people appointed at the illegitimate conference (60% of whom are in the SWP) are claiming to be Respect.  It's nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> 2 entertaining news snippets:
> 
> 1) The SWP have finally removed their membership census from their website. It has been replaced by a brief list of prominent people and a single sentence saying that 1,139 others have signed the list. Do you think it finally dawned on someone in their office that it might not be the brightest idea in the world to have a list of their members names on their website?



I seem to remember them attempting to discipline a member of this forum for naming two very well known members on here last year (both publically named in the later list). Looks like it wasn't such a big crime after all.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2007)

whoops


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 28, 2007)

More bizarre news from Bristol.

The SWP put a motion to the Respect branch demanding the removal of the local steering committee. They then mobilised absolutely every member they could scrape up, many of them people who had no involvement in Respect. So every non-SWP members bar one walked out of the meeting. A more perfect example of "capturing yourself" it's hard to find. After years of work in the city, the SWP has been left with an alliance of itself and one individual.

The other telling point is that there were apparently only seven non-SWP members at the meeting to start with, which doesn't say much for the prospects of non-SWP Respect either.

This sort of thing is unbelievably childish. Are they seriously planning to have more of these squabbles up and down the country? Wouldn't it be less humiliating for all concerned if they sat down and negotiated the terms of the split?

Although it may be that both sides are less concerned about being humiliated than they are about proving a point. I suppose that the SWP may feel that packing each branch in turn will given them a better claim to being "official" Respect. The other lot may think that going through such a process will ensure that the few non-SWP people who haven't made their minds up / still dream that a split can be avoided / sympathise with the SWP are completely alienated from the SWP.

Fucking idiocy all round.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 28, 2007)

Would the swp be upset if a teacher encouraged the kids to name their teddy bear 'George'?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 28, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> honestly mate, I am not confusing the two events, I am fully aware of the chronology of which you speak.  I am fully aware there was a series of attacks, including the "the worst of times the best of times", which led John Rees to make his remark in the telephone call.  ....



Oh dear what an interesting juxtoposition of events... 

the document was called "the best of times, the worst of times", it was released on 23 August.  Subsequently the SWP wrote a reply which they circulated to their members only, the SWP then held an aggregate of London members where they denounced Galloway and Yaqoob as communalists, John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh penned a response to Galloway, Salma Yaqoob wrote a document, Galloway and Yaqoob met with Rees and the SWP, Alan Thornett and John Lister wrote a document, the Respect NC met twice and unanimously agreed a resolution drafted by Alan Thornett proposing a National Organiser, the Officers group refused to appoint Nick Wrack and refused to change the composition of the Conference Arrangements Committe, the request from the Chair for membership records of student branches sending delegates to conference is refused and described as a "witch hunt", the SWP instruct Ovenden and Hoveman to resign immediately from Galloway's office and expel them when they ask for more time to discuss it, the SWP expel Nick Wrack for not refusing the nomination for National Organiser, two meetings of Tower Hamlets members end in disarray, 19 members of the NC consider a statement critical of the SWP,

...
then, and only then, a full two months after the original letter, on Monday 22 October does John Rees pick up the phone and say to Alan Thornett "we might as well call it a day if you are going to criticise us" ...


----------



## nwnm (Nov 29, 2007)

Third disgraceful attack on Councillor Oliur Rahman

Councillor Oliur Rahman's windows were smashed again last night, and he was warned by local people to stay away after they saw people acting suspiciously outside his home. 

This is the latest incident in a campaign of violence and intimidation against Oliur Rahman, including a physical attack and threatening emails and phone calls, since he and Councillors Lutfa Begum, Rania Khan and Ahmed Hussain resigned the whip of the councillors group in Tower Hamlets in protest at the leadership of the group. 

Councillor Rahman said "I'm amazed that people can think that this violence is the way to solve anything. This is supposed to be a democratic society, where everyone should be prepared to resolve their differences through the political process, not with bricks and boots.

"It's an attempt to intimidate me, but I refuse to be intimidated. If they feel that by intimidating me that they will get me out of politics, they will have a very long wait. I condemn violence against anyone, in any circumstances. Anyone who believes in democracy should do the same."


----------



## laptop (Nov 29, 2007)

Oliur Rahman said:
			
		

> I condemn violence against anyone, in any circumstances.



That's him expelled from the SWP, then.




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> Anyone who believes in democracy should do the same.



Or is this supposed to be a get-out clause?




Moral: if you get into Bangla politics and fall out with people, your windows may suffer. The possibility of your windows suffering from the attentions of people who think that your cause would be advanced by your claiming victim status is not excluded.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 29, 2007)

stylegar said:
			
		

> Repeating lies and half-truths doesn't make them come true, you delusional dimwit.



tell me - what was a lie?


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 29, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Third disgraceful attack on Councillor Oliur Rahman
> 
> Councillor Oliur Rahman's windows were smashed again last night, and he was warned by local people to stay away after they saw people acting suspiciously outside his home.
> 
> ...


 once again c+ping and spamming across threads. Has editor gone on holiday?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 29, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Oh dear what an interesting juxtoposition of events...
> 
> the document was called "the best of times, the worst of times", it was released on 23 August.  Subsequently the SWP wrote a reply which they circulated to their members only, the SWP then held an aggregate of London members where they denounced Galloway and Yaqoob as communalists, John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh penned a response to Galloway, Salma Yaqoob wrote a document, Galloway and Yaqoob met with Rees and the SWP, Alan Thornett and John Lister wrote a document, the Respect NC met twice and unanimously agreed a resolution drafted by Alan Thornett proposing a National Organiser, the Officers group refused to appoint Nick Wrack and refused to change the composition of the Conference Arrangements Committe, the request from the Chair for membership records of student branches sending delegates to conference is refused and described as a "witch hunt", the SWP instruct Ovenden and Hoveman to resign immediately from Galloway's office and expel them when they ask for more time to discuss it, the SWP expel Nick Wrack for not refusing the nomination for National Organiser, two meetings of Tower Hamlets members end in disarray, 19 members of the NC consider a statement critical of the SWP,
> 
> ...


 God this is tedious!  how many times do you want me to say this,I KNOW. 
I am fully aware there was a series of attacks,including "the best of times, the worst of times",butit was only after the final straw, the telephone conversation, that John Rees made a remark about walking.

I can see why you keep pedantically going on about these issues,which have no relevance to the essence of what I was saying, because then you don't have to apologise for saying what I said was untrue even though we have both demonstrated what I said was in essence true.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 29, 2007)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> More bizarre news from Bristol.
> 
> The SWP put a motion to the Respect branch demanding the removal of the local steering committee. They then mobilised absolutely every member they could scrape up, many of them people who had no involvement in Respect. So every non-SWP members bar one walked out of the meeting. A more perfect example of "capturing yourself" it's hard to find. After years of work in the city, the SWP has been left with an alliance of itself and one individual.
> 
> ...


I never go to the meetings of respect, though I still do stuff.  Still going through the motions of treasure actually.  Just because you don't turn up to the meetings, doesn't mean you don't do stuff towards respect.  In my experience, the vast majority of people who do stuff around election time don't come to the boring meetings.

I know people feel animosity when socialist worker get all those who agree with their analysis and strategy to turn up to the meeting when there is a battle about the way forward (packing).  But do you honestly believe Nigel, the Galloway faction isn't doing the same?  I find it hard to believe there are any groups that wouldn't do the same, IF THEY HAD THE SUPPORT.

I believe Galloway faction is being disingenuous when he compares Socialist worker attack on a group over a disagreement about a single policy, to the attack on Socialist worker suggesting they have systematically set out to undermine the growth of respect just so they can maintain control.  I agree with you none of this is doing any good.  This is why Socialist worker was against having such an argument about the way forward, and scapegoating the Galloway faction,  Socialist worker, any groups, in public.  I think the reese initial reaction was right, socialist worker should just walk from the whole project of substituting for reformists to kickstart reformist Organisation, but Socialist worker seem to think the building of this organisation is essential, and so are trapped in trying to keep hold of that organisation.   I cannot see what can possibly be gained for the common cause.


----------



## Do predele (Nov 29, 2007)

Havent got time to read 60pages - Can someone please explain what has shaun wright phillips done now?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 29, 2007)

Do predele said:
			
		

> Havent got time to read 60pages - Can someone please explain what has shaun wright phillips done now?


he hasn't crawled on his hands and knees back to COMS and offered to play on the right wing for nothing, and so when the revolution happens he will be first against the wall!

PS.  It is only 38 pages, can you not count?  I guess you must be a Cockney rag.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 29, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> But do you honestly believe Nigel, the Galloway faction isn't doing the same?  I find it hard to believe there are any groups that wouldn't do the same, IF THEY HAD THE SUPPORT..



In South Birmingham Respect, the SWP were effectively purged off the committee by Respect Renewal. However, they didn't walk out of the meeting but stayed afterwards and ate some somoza's - I would do the same, no point letting political quarrels get in the way of nice food! The Respect Renewal do have an upper hand on this, while Lindsey German has some nice recipes for coucous according to her blog, the petit-bourgeois restaurant owners have probably gone over to the Renewal side.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 29, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> In South Birmingham Respect, the SWP were effectively purged off the committee by Respect Renewal.



Yes, although at least I believe they were regularly scheduled elections. The Bristol committee was elected at an AGM all of two months ago. Still it certainly shows that wherever they have the upper hand both sides are hammering it home.

The other thing both areas have in common is the total isolation of the SWP. They've now been working on building some kind of broad alliance in Birmingham and in Bristol for seven years now. And in both places they are now smaller than they started and in both places they could only find one single non-member to vote with them. Alliances of a shrunken SWP with one person. What a triumph.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Nov 29, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> God this is tedious!  how many times do you want me to say this,I KNOW.
> I am fully aware there was a series of attacks,including "the best of times, the worst of times",butit was only after the final straw, the telephone conversation, that John Rees made a remark about walking.
> 
> I can see why you keep pedantically going on about these issues,which have no relevance to the essence of what I was saying, because then you don't have to apologise for saying what I said was untrue even though we have both demonstrated what I said was in essence true.



It's important because this 'series of attacks', as you put it, included a meeting of the National Council that agreed *unanimously* to make some serious changes in the way Respect ran, including the appointment of a National Organiser accountable to the NC (not the National Secretary).  The National Secretary insisted on seconding this resolution - so much for it being "an attack".  

Of course the event that changed all of this behaviour was the announcement that there would be no general election.  

My point in emphasising an understanding of the chronology (pedantically' as you put it) is that these events were not as they are now being portrayed as a 'drip drip' of escalating attacks on the SWP until they reached a point of no return, but a series of crises which the SWP lurched in and out of - first being defensive, then conciliatory, then massively upping the stakes with the "Galloway goes on the Rampage" PN and the instruction to Hoveman/Ovenden to resign, then claiming to want to walk and they wanted to postpone the conference, then saying they wanted unity and the conference had to go ahead, etc etc....


----------



## JHE (Nov 30, 2007)

*Two grudge matches?*

Getting more or less back up to date...

Al-Respeq (Renewal) in Tower Hamladesh has selected its parliamentary candidates.  As expected by everyone, Big GG is to be the candidate in Poplar and Canning Town and, predictably enough, Big Abjol Miah, the Top Man in the al-Respeq council group, is to be the candidate in GG's current constituency of  Bethnal Green and Bow.

What is al-Respeq (Social Workers' Façade) going to do?  Come on Social Workers!  It's time to select your candidates.  How about Oliur Rahman to stand against Big Abjol and Johnny Rees to stand against Big GG?  That would be a lively pair of contests.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 1, 2007)

I'd be fairly appalled if we didn't just let them have it.


----------



## nwnm (Dec 2, 2007)

what - as in open fire?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 5, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It's important because this 'series of attacks', as you put it, included a meeting of the National Council that agreed *unanimously* to make some serious changes in the way Respect ran, including the appointment of a National Organiser accountable to the NC (not the National Secretary).  The National Secretary insisted on seconding this resolution - so much for it being "an attack".


Yes the comrade did confirm John Rees initially had reservations, but then supported the nomination.



> Of course the event that changed all of this behaviour was the announcement that there would be no general election.


  How did it change behaviour, and that what was the motive for this change in behaviour?



> My point in emphasising an understanding of the chronology (pedantically' as you put it) is that these events were not as they are now being portrayed as a 'drip drip' of escalating attacks on the SWP until they reached a point of no return, but a series of crises which the SWP lurched in and out of - first being defensive, then conciliatory, then massively upping the stakes with the "Galloway goes on the Rampage" PN and the instruction to Hoveman/Ovenden to resign, then claiming to want to walk and they wanted to postpone the conference, then saying they wanted unity and the conference had to go ahead, etc etc....


Okay, I tried to get the information from the horse's mouth's, so to speak.

I have tried to speak to several people who are either members of the Galloway faction, or part of their periphery.  None of them have been prepared to phone back in the past week.  So much for anti-sectarianism.  (Just to clarify, are the Galloway faction prepared to work with SW an organisation?)

Did manage to get an SW member to discuss the issue, he is an ordinary member, not part of the leadership.  He made it clear that it wasn't just the recent events that worried SW.  I think this is what is meant by the rightword shift the Galloway faction represents.  Broadly speaking I think the worry could be generally described as "electoralism", that more emphasis was being placed upon choosing candidates that could win, rather than socialists.  With the ' success' of respect in some areas, careerists could see that respects represented an opportunity to get elected.  50 £10 memberships would suddenly arrive before a meeting, and a small businessman would end up being the candidate.  In another instance, it would be argued a Bengali candidate would have a better to opportunity of winning, the meeting was packed to win this candidate, and the woman Socialist candidate not chosen.  In these instances this comrade insisted, even though SW lost the vote, they did throw what resources they had behind the decision.

Then come the recent events, which we have already described.  SW acknowledges respect were not in a position to fight the snap election financially or membership wise.  George Galloway possibly in a panic about this began to write his discussion document.  George Galloway was approached about the "discussion document" before it was finished, but he refused to discuss it.  Instead of going to the National Council, it mysteriously became public, George possibly once again circumventing respect democracy, (like with Big Brother).

The comrades emphasised, SW would gladly welcome George Galloway back and anyone else from the Galloway faction.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Dec 5, 2007)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Yes the comrade did confirm John Rees initially had reservations, but then supported the nomination.
> 
> How did it change behaviour, and that what was the motive for this change in behaviour?
> 
> ...



The "electoralism" claim is a load of old tosh and a cover for a series of disasterous manouevres.  Are the SWP leadership seriously saying that Jerry Hicks resigned from the SWP because he had become an "electoralist".  Or that Linda Smith has gone over to "electoralism"?  It's as nonsense as the idea that Galloway represents a 'right wing'.

It is clear that the real reason for the crash and burn/scorched earth policy is that the SWP leadership were not prepared to accept that they had to change their ways in order to work in a "coalition", and had to give up their unrelenting hold that had not exactly taken Respect forward.  

I am sure everyone in the Respect Renewal "camp" is perfectly prepared to work with the SWP membership within a broad organisation.  What they are not prepared to accept is to be dictated to by an unaccountable SWP leadership who have become incapable of building broad unity.  The only people who can change that are the SWP membership - however I'm not holding out much hope, as they have been schooled in a mode of functioning that denies them independent critical evaluation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 5, 2007)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The "electoralism" claim is a load of old tosh and a cover for a series of disasterous manouevres.


 so big brother was not an attempt to build in respect?  his media career is not a attempt to build respect? emphasis on candidates that can win, over candidates politics is  not electoralism?  





> Are the SWP leadership seriously saying that Jerry Hicks resigned from the SWP because he had become an "electoralist".  Or that Linda Smith has gone over to "electoralism"?


 I don't know what the leadership saying about them, as far I can make out Jerry Hicks was prepared to work with SW until SW packed a meeting.  Isn't that right?





> It's as nonsense as the idea that Galloway represents a 'right wing'.


 so would you argue George Galloway represents the left wing of respect?  and would you argue that SW membership are a right wing of respect?



> It is clear that the real reason for the crash and burn/scorched earth policy is that the SWP leadership were not prepared to accept that they had to change their ways in order to work in a "coalition", and had to give up their unrelenting hold that had not exactly taken Respect forward.
> 
> I am sure everyone in the Respect Renewal "camp" is perfectly prepared to work with the SWP membership within a broad organisation.  What they are not prepared to accept is to be dictated to by an unaccountable SWP leadership who have become incapable of building broad unity.  The only people who can change that are the SWP membership - however I'm not holding out much hope, as they have been schooled in a mode of functioning that denies them independent critical evaluation.


trotbots? so there is no politics.  No political differences about strategy.  All there is his personality issues.  Leadership of SW who just want to control things for controlling sake, and a membership who are brainwashed.  even I who have not been a active member for several years am incapable "independent critical evaluation", if that view disagrees with yours? in fact, I've even noticed on these boards that nonmembers who tried to look at the argument from both sides of the coin gets accused of being trotbots.

SW's analysis of George Galloway, Respect, etc may be wrong, but at least it's an attempt at a political analysis.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 6, 2007)

you know SW's "their unrelenting hold", how did this manifest?  They don't seem to have had a "their unrelenting hold " on the national committee.


----------

