"a movement of hope"

[durruti02]

what I have said above doesn't contradict what you have said there. as dog said, of course any organisation tries to recruit, and SW quite rightly encourages its members not to be shy about it. but it isn't THE MAIN aim, it is a means to the main aim.

in fact I went further, ALL organisations on the left should try a lot harder than they are to recruit people. The left and society is in desperate need of activists fighting for progressive causes. I would absolutely dearly love to see an SP of 20,000 members. same goes for the anarchists etc.

there is a fundamental difference in recruting because you want more members to do 'good work' and recruiting as you beleive that only a party and in fgact your party is the only route to change.

really rmp3 i can not believe you are denying the fundamental leninist tenet of the SWP??? this is my reference to 68 .. cliff decided that 68 failed due to the abscence of a leninist party and converted the IS from a sort of luxembourgism to leninism and hence the chnage from IS to SWP ..

when the SW says " ..the act of the w/c alone" this is over-ridden by the neccessity of the w/c ( apparrently) SWP to lead this revolution .. simple .. fact

 

[TremulousTetra]

Just because the SWP aren't big doesn't mean recruitment isn't their main aim. It just means they're shit at it and most people just don't want to join them.

OK, I get your point, it was a flippant response to Dur, but there was also a serious element to it. which I have made several times over the last 12 months.party membership has gone from about 10,000, to about 2000, this is because the party put building Socialist Alliance/Respect before building the revolutionary party, a mistake now and I believe. I think it is the same point that Dur is making. Reasonable point, no?

but I still don't accept "MAIN AIM". WTF for. why would I want a party, for having a party's sake? it doesn't do anything but cost me a lot of time, hard work, and money. the party is merely a means to an end, the main aim of emancipation of the working class.
(see my comments to Dur)

 

[butchersapron]

Yeh, because you devise policy.

 

[TremulousTetra]

really rmp3 i can not believe you are denying the fundamental leninist tenet of the SWP??? this is my reference to 68 .. cliff decided that 68 failed due to the abscence of a leninist party and converted the IS from a sort of luxembourgism to leninism and hence the chnage from IS to SWP ..

when the SW says " ..the act of the w/c alone" this is over-ridden by the neccessity of the w/c ( apparrently) SWP to lead this revolution .. simple .. fact

I have never denied that, what I did say was I didn't understand your reference cliff 1968. I fully agree with the need for a Leninist party. If there isn't a need for a Leninist party, can you answer the same question I put to balders and Napoleon with no response (as usual). If a Leninist party is not necessary, why hasn't the working class taken control?

there is a fundamental difference in recruting because you want more members to do 'good work' and recruiting as you beleive that only a party and in fgact your party is the only route to change.

before you respond to this, please take a moment to think about what I'd said. I would say that charge in that sentence is far more applicable to you, than to I. It is far more applicable to the anarchist I have come across on here, than it is to the Socialist worker party members. Why?

I, and no SW members I have come across, view sections of the left as "the enemy", "the obstacle", that must be overcome before any progress can be made towards Socialism/anarchism. The continual diatribes against SW illustrate that you far more than them believe yours is the only path to socialism/anarchism. None of you seem to be able to tolerate a Leninist alternative to your one true shining Path, and want only to see the demise of SW (sectarianism). by contrast, I never see SW members taking the same attitude to anarchists, or anyone else on the left for that matter, in fact SW have always said it would like to see a bigger and more vibrant anarchist/Socialist movement. we criticise others on the left, but we don't obsess about them.

in other words, you Napoleon and the others should take a long hard look at themselves before making such accusations.

Of course I think SW is the one party that has the right tactics to achieve socialism, if I thought any other organisation was best suited I would leave SW and join that. SW believing it has the right tactic over all other left organisations, is no different to you believing your methodologies are better than any other organisations. You do believe that don't you? If not, can you tell me which organisations have better methodologies than those you employ?

Lastley, who is to say you are recruiting people to "good work"? If your philosophy is bankrupt, and has no possibility of ever achieving socialism/anarchism all your recruitment is bankrupt, no?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeh, because you devise policy.

why haven't the masses taken control Butch?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeh, because you devise policy.

you didn't answer.

membership has gone from about 10,000, to about 2000, this is because the party put building Socialist Alliance/Respect before building the revolutionary party, a mistake now and I believe. Reasonable point, no?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeh, because you devise policy.

okay so you won't answer the other two questions, let's see if you will answer this one.

so you accept for the vast majority of the membership of SW, the main aim is emancipation of the working-class?

 

[Cressi]

cor its a real cliffhanger???

Maybe the masses have been mindnumblingly indocrinated and dont know they could ......take.........power? Or are they too selfish stuck in their own insular materialistic caves?

 

[TremulousTetra]

cor its a real cliffhanger???

Maybe the masses have been mindnumblingly indocrinated and dont know they could ......take.........power? Or are they too selfish stuck in their own insular materialistic caves?

we will never know because only Napoleon can tell us.

 

[mk12]

you didn't answer.

membership has gone from about 10,000, to about 2000, this is because the party put building Socialist Alliance/Respect before building the revolutionary party, a mistake now and I believe. Reasonable point, no?

No. It's because people don't believe Leninist politics will improve their lives in the short or long term. The fall of the USSR must have had an impact on the farleft whether Trotskyist or Stalinist, as they were both defined by their support of and opposition to the USSR. It's the politics of the olden days.

 

[cockneyrebel]

No. It's because people don't believe Leninist politics will improve their lives in the short or long term. The fall of the USSR must have had an impact on the farleft whether Trotskyist or Stalinist, as they were both defined by their support of and opposition to the USSR. It's the politics of the olden days.

But this is all you do, well along with your totally apolitical posts. You criticise the SWP and other far left groups but seem to have nothing constructive to say.

What alternative do you think should be built? The SWP are doing badly, but so is the rest of the left whether the anarchos or the IWCA whether you want to measure it in organisational terms or as a method.

Personally I think the left should be putting a huge effort into rebuilding the unions because until power bases are built up in the workplace we're fucked.

But rather than just endlessly bleat on about easy targets why not try and suggest something constructive?

 

[mk12]

I have done this on numerous threads. Do you actually copy and paste the same posts from 2003? You ask butchers, for example, the same questions over and over and over.

Personally I think the left should be putting a huge effort into rebuilding the unions because until power bases are built up in the workplace we're fucked.

Good for you. I'm not bothered about what the left do. RMP3 was talking about why the far left has declined over the last 10-15 years. I have given some possible reasons for this. I wasn't aware I needed to offer RMP3 advice on what to do instead. We're discussing what's gone wrong and why. Would you like posters to offer a proposal at the end of every post, as a sort of conclusion?

Please don't drag this thread down the road of analysing people's views and why they have them (as you do with me, nigel irritable, butchers, chuck etc etc). Try to stay on topic. I'm sure RMP3 would rather hear your opinion on the SWP and why they have 2,000 members as opposed to 10,000 members, rather than what you think about me.

Cue a psychoanalyst report on why i'm so 'cynical'.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I have done this on numerous threads. Do you actually copy and paste the same posts from 2003? You ask butchers, for example, the same questions over and over and over.

You always say you do, but you don't. Your posts are almost always either apolitical (as others have said) or politically cynical. And you still don't get the difference between someone saying someone is politically cynical and giving a "psychoanalyst report" on why someone is cynical. It's not about your personality (I don't know you), it's about your politics.

It's easy to lay in to the SWP, harder to actually give positive alternatives. And no-one said you have to do anything, but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere just giving negative responses.

For someone who isn't bothered about what the left do you don't half bang on about it a lot. And once again it's not "about you", it's about your cynical politics and the reason I'm commenting on that is because it means you comment about things from a certain political angle that I don't agree with.

 

[mk12]

Cue a psychoanalyst report on why i'm so 'cynical'.

...

You have not responded at all to my comments. Please don't drag RMP3's thread down the drain.

 

[cockneyrebel]

You have not responded at all to my comments. Please don't drag RMP3's thread down the drain.

Tis fun

I didn't think you made any comments that you wanted answered to be honest. But if you want to make the point that the SWP is not the way forward and has no real future for the millienth time then go ahead. I still think it would be better to try and move on to something a bit more constructive and actually say what campaigns and methods could achieve something. Maybe even try doing something yourself. After all this thread is called "a movement of hope" (and was started by durutti).

 

[imposs1904]

you didn't answer.

membership has gone from about 10,000, to about 2000, this is because the party put building Socialist Alliance/Respect before building the revolutionary party, a mistake now and I believe. Reasonable point, no?

RMP3,

When exactly did the SWP have 10,000 members? I've seen the figure bandied around for years but I've never quite believed it.

Did it stay at 10,000 for a few years and then slowly start falling or was there a period when the membership figures started to nosedive?

My skepticism is that if the membership went from 10,000 to 2,000 in a matter of 5 or 6 years, surely there would have been some sort of internal discussion/dissent to address this sharp change in circumstances?

 

[mk12]

Tis fun

I didn't think you made any comments that you wanted answered to be honest. But if you want to make the point that the SWP is not the way forward and has no real future for the millienth time then go ahead. I still think it would be better to try and move on to something a bit more constructive and actually say what campaigns and methods could achieve something. Maybe even try doing something yourself. After all this thread is called "a movement of hope" (and was started by durutti).

RMP3 is wondering why the SWP has lost members. I gave my opinion. This is a discussion board. I always feel like I have to explain myself to you every time I post!

What did I say that you disagreed with? Why do you think the SWP has lost so many members? Let's get back on topic.

 

[cockneyrebel]

RMP3 is wondering why the SWP has lost members. I gave my opinion. This is a discussion board. I always feel like I have to explain myself to you every time I post!

What did I say that you disagreed with? Why do you think the SWP has lost so many members? Let's get back on topic.

On topic? The thread is entitled "a movement of hope", which I would have thought would of been about looking at ways we can move things forward, not use the thread to feed people's obsessions about this or that group. But as said, if you want to carry on doing that, go ahead. I was just suggesting I think there are more constructive things to do, given the way this thread was started. P&P seem to cover positive ways of moving forward far less than navel gazing about tiny far left groups. Sadly this thread also seems to have gone that way.

And you don't have to explain stuff to me (we don't know each other from Adam), as you said, it's a web board and tis fun

 

[TremulousTetra]

No. It's because people don't believe Leninist politics will improve their lives in the short or long term. The fall of the USSR must have had an impact on the farleft whether Trotskyist or Stalinist, as they were both defined by their support of and opposition to the USSR. It's the politics of the olden days.

what can I say, you are entitled to your opinion, but that does not fit with my personal experience or the facts.

my personal experience from my area, and the experience nationaly, was an increase in membership just before the war in Iraq (can't remember the exact dates, particularly good experience in my area was around the period of the war in Yugoslavia, when we had a particularly good organiser, and well after the fall of the USSR.) over a period of time there was major changes in the way SW orientated and was organised, these not only saw a fall in recruitment, bought a loss of a major section of old and new members.

now my argument is, if membership was the "main aim", this would have been noted quite quickly , and something done to reverse the trend. Obviously something else motivated them beyond alleged "main aim" of building the party membership. my argument now is that they should have concentrated on building up the party, rather than substituting for the working class in the creation of a reformist party.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3,

When exactly did the SWP have 10,000 members? I've seen the figure bandied around for years but I've never quite believed it.

Did it stay at 10,000 for a few years and then slowly start falling or was there a period when the membership figures started to nosedive?

My skepticism is that if the membership went from 10,000 to 2,000 in a matter of 5 or 6 years, surely there would have been some sort of internal discussion/dissent to address this sharp change in circumstances?

I think your post is genuine , not interested in quibbling about whether it was 10,000, 9000, 8000, 7000, in truth it could have been any one of those figures, I don't honestly know.

My experience in my area, has been one where there was indeed a high level of recruitment/re-recruitment, which started to build slowly from about two or three years before the war in Yugoslavia, and reached a peak probably just before, or just after SW joining the Socialist Alliance. I would say in my experience in my area this was more to do with factors within SW, than factors without, though of course historical circumstances provided the causes around which SW could prove itself worthy of joining. This was a period when the party in my area really did put an emphasis on building the party, and really did influence the working class when it moved in our area (the real main aim). the model for the party which brought about this success was quite deliberately scrapped, at the time when the branches were closed down.

There was an internal discussion about this, and that the argument was won (I agreed). There has been continuing internal arguments and discussions, and the arguments have been continually won for the present strategy (with some back pedalling, ie branches reopened.) there has been more argument since the split, and as far as I understand it they have decided to keep on the same course. this in my opinion it's because the situation has been contradictory. Whilst there has been a decline in membership, you could possibly argue, and some hostiles have on here, there has been an increase in influence nationally. plus there has been a laudable aspiration to create a a new reformist milieu/party, weird revolutionaries firmly rooted amongst them, which at some time in the future with the proper historical circumstances could be won to revolution instead of reform.

That is my honest experience in my area. I have spoken to rank-and-file members in the local area, members for a very long time, who still thoroughly agree with the present strategy, and I have spoken to people who have left in disagreement.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3 is wondering why the SWP has lost members. I gave my opinion. This is a discussion board. I always feel like I have to explain myself to you every time I post!

What did I say that you disagreed with? Why do you think the SWP has lost so many members? Let's get back on topic.

NO, durs comments were about SW building power, you took this to mean building of the party, to which I responded a weird post at 11. I think you need to reread this.

 

[TremulousTetra]

mk12 I notice you have been dishonest as usual, by not conceding you were wrong.

 

[durruti02]

I have never denied that, what I did say was I didn't understand your reference cliff 1968. I fully agree with the need for a Leninist party. If there isn't a need for a Leninist party, can you answer the same question I put to balders and Napoleon with no response (as usual). If a Leninist party is not necessary, why hasn't the working class taken control?

before you respond to this, please take a moment to think about what I'd said. I would say that charge in that sentence is far more applicable to you, than to I. It is far more applicable to the anarchist I have come across on here, than it is to the Socialist worker party members. Why?

I, and no SW members I have come across, view sections of the left as "the enemy", "the obstacle", that must be overcome before any progress can be made towards Socialism/anarchism. The continual diatribes against SW illustrate that you far more than them believe yours is the only path to socialism/anarchism. None of you seem to be able to tolerate a Leninist alternative to your one true shining Path, and want only to see the demise of SW (sectarianism). by contrast, I never see SW members taking the same attitude to anarchists, or anyone else on the left for that matter, in fact SW have always said it would like to see a bigger and more vibrant anarchist/Socialist movement. we criticise others on the left, but we don't obsess about them.

in other words, you Napoleon and the others should take a long hard look at themselves before making such accusations.

Of course I think SW is the one party that has the right tactics to achieve socialism, if I thought any other organisation was best suited I would leave SW and join that. SW believing it has the right tactic over all other left organisations, is no different to you believing your methodologies are better than any other organisations. You do believe that don't you? If not, can you tell me which organisations have better methodologies than those you employ?

Lastley, who is to say you are recruiting people to "good work"? If your philosophy is bankrupt, and has no possibility of ever achieving socialism/anarchism all your recruitment is bankrupt, no?

sorry misssed this post to which i almost entirely disagree but have no time to properly reply now . will do shortly

 

[mk12]

If a Leninist party is not necessary, why hasn't the working class taken control?

That's a very simplistic analysis. There's hundreds if not thousands of reasons why the working class hasn't taken control in various countries. THe lack of a Leninist party isn't one of them. In fact, numerous countries have been taken over by Leninist parties with some...interesting results (Russia, Cuba, Vietnam etc).

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's a very simplistic analysis. There's hundreds if not thousands of reasons why the working class hasn't taken control in various countries.

that's exactly my point, there are hundreds if not thousands of reasons why the working class has not taken control, precisely the reason why you need some kind, not necessarily Leninist, LEADERSHIP/vanguard, no?

Cuba was never Leninist, Russia was strangled from without, no expert on Vietnam. that is a very simplistic analysis.