BNP is splitting....!

[The Black Hand]

What is this? Meditation time with our resident anarchist Buddha?

the great Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu argued that;

Great wisdom may resemble foolishness.

 

[8ball]

I think we're going to need some kind of n-dimensional visual representation which can be done by Crispy in the form of a graph, or mauvais in the form of a drawing of a robot.

Circles are, like, so 16th century, dude

 

[nightowl]

Do you really not think that special branch has better things to do than infiltrate the far left considering their current state?.

having a special branch infiltrator would probably double some of their memberships

 

[Spion]

the great Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu argued that;

Great wisdom may resemble foolishness.

I recognise your suffering, comrade

 

[JHE]

This sort of struggle-to-power/split-in-group is a classic group dynamic - it's the sort of thing that happens to many groups regardless of political ideology - I call it 'the amoeba'* - organism splits to form two nearly identical orgs - don't tell me you've not seen this in action, JHE?




*binary fission

It is as the Great Helmsman said, eh? "One divides into two. Two do not unite into one."

All sorts of groups split, but not as often or as much.

Factors that determine the likelihood of such splits:

1. Size. The smaller the group, the less any faction within the group has to lose by splitting from the other faction or factions. The BNP is a small party. Trot groups are small or tiny.

2. Style of leadership. Some leaders and leaderships can lead to splendidly entertaining break-ups. Think of mad old Healy and his WRP. In the case of the BNP, it seems that Griffin's insistence on keeping Collett in a senior position, against the wishes of a great many members who see Collett as a serious liability, is the main disagreement behind the current ructions. Style of leadership was a big bone of contention in al-Respeq, which has now split.

3. Degree of doctrinaire nuttiness. Not so much of a factor in the current BNP ructions, AFAIK, but often a big part of the problem with small parties. The more doctrinaire the group, the more brittle it is.

 

[Lock&Light]

This is an ignorant comment for many reasons, not least because it is based upon a bourgeois binary opposition political spectrum, a teleological line analysis;

extreme left here----------centre----------extreme right

I prefer Marxist totality analysis which approximates a circle.

I've always seen the political spectrum as a circle, putting the extreme right adjacent to the extreme left, with only a hair's breadth in between.

 

[Mallard]

I've always seen the political spectrum as a circle, putting the extreme right adjacent to the extreme left, with only a hair's breadth in between.

Why

Do you get confused by concepts such as Nationalism and Internationalism?

 

[Mallard]

If Special Branch have infiltrated any of the League for a 5th International lot or either of the SPGBs then I think there ought to be some enquiry into the use of taxpayers' money.

 

[barney_pig]

Why

Do you get confused by concepts such as Nationalism and Internationalism?

LENINIST ----- FASCIST

Authoritarian ----- Authoritarian
statist -------- statist
repressive ----- repressive
intolerent ----- intolerent
centralist ----- centralist
dictatorial ----- dictatorial
elitist ------ elitist

 

[Spion]

LENINIST ----- FASCIST

Authoritarian ----- Authoritarian
statist -------- statist
repressive ----- repressive
intolerent ----- intolerent
centralist ----- centralist
dictatorial ----- dictatorial
elitist ------ elitist

I'd like to know how the w/c can ever take power against an enemy armed to the teeth if it's not authoritarian and repressive against the capitalist state's forces and uses its own state-like forms to dictate the rule of workers' councils via armed force.

The supreme irony is that those that whinge of 'authoritarian Leninism' etc never seem to take part in anything that holds them to account. Instead they are free to dictate, to act as an elite etc. There will be hierarchies in human society for some time to come, probably forever, the question is how to control them. Anarchism abdicates on that question

Whoops, derail. But then I blame all those silly liberals who can't tell the difference between a socialist and a fascist

 

[Mallard]

LENINIST ----- FASCIST

How could Lenin be described in any way as a 'fascist'?

Dictatorial/authoritarian and ruthless but a fascist'

Please explain!

 

[mk12]

Do you really not think that special branch has better things to do than infiltrate the far left considering their current state?



.......a diamond piece of analysis there........I think everyone on here is probably well aware of this. But cheer up, surely you can be happy that the BNP might be tearing itself apart......

And any left alternative that can be built up (whatever form it takes) will find it easier if the far right is weaker.

I'm well chuffed. Positive positive nice nice.

 

[mk12]

I'd like to know how the w/c can ever take power against an enemy armed to the teeth if it's not authoritarian and repressive against the capitalist state's forces and uses its own state-like forms to dictate the rule of workers' councils via armed force.

The supreme irony is that those that whinge of 'authoritarian Leninism' etc never seem to take part in anything that holds them to account. Instead they are free to dictate, to act as an elite etc. There will be hierarchies in human society for some time to come, probably forever, the question is how to control them. Anarchism abdicates on that question

Whoops, derail. But then I blame all those silly liberals who can't tell the difference between a socialist and a fascist

So wrong on so many levels.

 

[krow]

I've always seen the political spectrum as a circle, putting the extreme right adjacent to the extreme left, with only a hair's breadth in between.

Politics is like the globe - if you go far enough left you end up on the right and if you go far enough right you end up on the left.

 

[mauvais]

I think we're going to need some kind of n-dimensional visual representation which can be done by Crispy in the form of a graph, or mauvais in the form of a drawing of a robot.

Circles are, like, so 16th century, dude

Your wish* is my command.

*Offer limited to one wish per household

 

[8ball]

YAYY!

And the debate is settled.

 

[mauvais]

All the best debates are settled in MS Paint.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So wrong on so many levels.

Care to elucidate, or would you prefer that other posters all imagine you stroking your metaphorical chin and looking portentous?

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

This sort of struggle-to-power/split-in-group is a classic group dynamic - it's the sort of thing that happens to many groups regardless of political ideology - I call it 'the amoeba'* - organism splits to form two nearly identical orgs - don't tell me you've not seen this in action, JHE?

*binary fission

I agree. It happens with forums too. Hence you get the splinter forums from urban and then the splinter forums from the splinter forums and then the splinter forums from the splinter forums from the splinter forums, and so on and so forth, til you end up with a forum which is just one lone(ly) guy standing pissing and shouting into the wind...

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Why

Do you get confused by concepts such as Nationalism and Internationalism?

But then, existing socialist regimes have been far more nationalist than internationalist...

 

[laptop]

Your wish* is my command.

*Offer limited to one wish per household

I'd like a house, please

 

[Spion]

I agree. It happens with forums too. Hence you get the splinter forums from urban and then the splinter forums from the splinter forums and then the splinter forums from the splinter forums from the splinter forums, and so on and so forth

Except with the cliques here and the splintees it's largely based on personal enmity. A lot of people here simply take sides, and politics or principle doesn't enter into their calculations. Some are cleverer than that but still do it, some I think are so lacking in self esteem that the feuding and fighting have become their way of feeling self worth.

 

[Spion]

But then, existing socialist regimes have been far more nationalist than internationalist...

You think they were socialist?

 

[Spion]

So wrong on so many levels.

Maybe you'd like to enlighten me then?

 

[Mallard]

But then, existing socialist regimes have been far more nationalist than internationalist...

They would mainly claim to be Internationalist in outlook but more focussed on their national developments out of neccessities such as the state of their own countries/economies and attempting to develop in a largely hostile global environment.

 

[Spion]

They would mainly claim to be Internationalist in outlook but more focussed on their national developments out of neccessities such as the state of their own countries/economies and attempting to develop in a largely hostile global environment.

Oh crikey, you think those things were socialist too?

 

[Mallard]

Oh crikey, you think those things were socialist too?

No that's a long and complicated thread I'd say. They were characteristics of past/current countries who self-identified as 'Socialist'.

 

[Spion]

No that's a long and complicated thread I'd say. They were characteristics of past/current countries who self-identified as 'Socialist'.

Well, it could be long and complicated, but my short version is that they were countries where capitalism was got rid of but there was no democratic control of the planned economy that replaced it.

In such circumstances you can bureaucratically (ie, top down) plan for the big things the economy needs - X number of steelworks, X miles of railway etc - but then gauging the more precise needs of individuals needs a mechanism that can give more detailed feedback, and that means either democratic mechanisms or the market. And seeing as the Stalinist bureaucracies were never going to allow the former they ended up moving towards the latter.

Ok, it was longer than I expected but I think that sums it up

 

[Mallard]

Well, it could be long and complicated, but my short version is that they were countries where capitalism was got rid of but there was no democratic control of the planned economy that replaced it.

In such circumstances you can bureaucratically (ie, top down) plan for the big things the economy needs - X number of steelworks, X miles of railway etc - but then gauging the more precise needs of individuals needs a mechanism that can give more detailed feedback, and that means either democratic mechanisms or the market. And seeing as the Stalinist bureaucracies were never going to allow the former they ended up moving towards the latter.

Ok, it was longer than I expected but I think that sums it up

That's straight out of '...Betrayed..' Comrade and tbh a controversial assessment. Are you suggesting that applies exactly to every single self identified 'Socialist State' up to the present date? I imagine you'd argue 'top down' or 'state bureaucratic' are universal features but a real assessment needs a lot more variety and depth than your admirable attempt above!

 

[Spion]

Are you suggesting that applies exactly to every single self identified 'Socialist State' up to the present date?

No. There are lots of countries that have stuck socialist in their official names, like Egypt for eg, that I wouldn't include.

I was thinking only of the USSR, the post-WW2 E Europe Sov bloc, Cuba, China, V Nam

I imagine you'd argue 'top down' or 'state bureaucratic' are universal features but a real assessment needs a lot more variety and depth than your admirable attempt above!

Oh, of course, there could be many books written about it