First election to SWP leadership in years

[Nigel Irritable]

NI you demonstrate Moti's point. Abstract denounciations of capitalism.

There is nothing "abstract" about talking about capitalism as the cause of world poverty on a demonstration dedicated to the issue of world poverty. It's basic Marxism, so basic that only the SWP amongst supposed "socialists" could miss it. But I'm sure you had a nice day out, blending in with the Vicars and echoing Geldofs views.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There is nothing "abstract" about talking about capitalism as the cause of world poverty on a demonstration dedicated to the issue of world poverty. It's basic Marxism, so basic that only the SWP amongst supposed "socialists" could miss it. But I'm sure you had a nice day out, blending in with the Vicars and echoing Geldofs views.

That's right, you just keep telling people how stupid they have been all these years. I am sure they will just be enthralled.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

That's right, you just keep telling people how stupid they have been all these years. I am sure they will just be enthralled.

And now we have a "socialist" telling us that pointing the finger at capitalism as the root cause of povery is the same as "telling people how stupid they have been all these years". You couldn't make this shit up!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And now we have a "socialist" telling us that pointing the finger at capitalism as the root cause of povery is the same as "telling people how stupid they have been all these years". You couldn't make this shit up!

I'm not sure there isn't the tiniest bit of distortion involved there, Nigel. Still, it worked for Jimi Hendrix.

 

[mk12]

sorry Matt but I missed the bit where he said how he would make the SWP more democratic and inclusive.

Read it again, and read last year's contribution too.

 

[moti]

yes but it's the way you do it...

...that matters

you miss my point Nigel in your attempt to point score, the meeting i was in was with Susan George she talked about the 'no' campaign in France and how involved building local networks to defeat the right - this inevitably brought the problem of working with people you may not agree with everything on that is, a united front which is the key issue for socialists at the moment- the CWI in this situation doesn't connect with the actual argument and think about how you would address it - ie. how would you argue your politics and show practically a way forward that doesn't put others off, but does take the movement forward (as we did with the debates over Feb 15 in the ESF)

Why? Because it has little recent practical experience of this - so instead we get 3(!) ritualistic denounciations of capitalism which then allows Susan George to easily rubbish the points by saying well show me the winter palace and we'll storm it...in other words if your so correct then where is the revolution?

Which seeing as she'd just outlined an ACTUAL, SUCCESSFUL campaign that defeated neo-liberalism was a bit of a mistake

 

[poster342002]

The SWP do come across as the least "revolutionary" or "socialist" revolutionary socialist party I've ever seen. I mean, launching their "RESPECT" outfit (how does anyone even say the word with a straight face?) when the fashion for trendy-liberal "identity politcs" died out back in the 80's is just bizarre.

 

[TremulousTetra]

And now we have a "socialist" telling us that pointing the finger at capitalism as the root cause of povery is the same as "telling people how stupid they have been all these years". You couldn't make this shit up!

you do make "shit up" on a regular basis.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The SWP do come across as the least "revolutionary" or "socialist" revolutionary socialist party I've ever seen. I mean, launching their "RESPECT" outfit (how does anyone even say the word with a straight face?) when the fashion for trendy-liberal "identity politcs" died out back in the 80's is just bizarre.

Hmmm, well they may feel it connected with a group of people that needed to be connected with, and that they've made some progress in that aim.

 

[moti]

it's difficult I know

also, and I know this is difficult for some of you - Respect IS NOT the swp!

The call for Respect came from Salma Yaqoob and others not us...

 

[mk12]

moti: are you going to the conference?

 

[poster342002]

also, and I know this is difficult for some of you - Respect IS NOT the swp!

The call for Respect came from Salma Yaqoob and others not us...

How do you expect people to differentiate when the SWP spend so much time identifying with and plugging RESPECT!?

Or are you now admitting that the SWP are actually the junior partners in this setup?

 

[Groucho]

Far better to tailend the various godbotherers and well meaning NGO's just like in the STWC and UAF. No fan of the weekly worker but the source material was from the pre conference bulletin so hardly lacking credibility.

It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence. Key to all this is an understanding that revolutionaries do not have a monopoly on good ideas and stategies and that a would-be revolutionary party can learn from those you work with and alongside.

The SP approach is to propogandise as if they are the ones with all the answers and all any one else can do is listen and learn. When it comes to obtaining and maintaining influence though, the SP frequently behave in a less than revolutionary manner. We have to abolish capitalism, but we cannot fight the Government over decent pensions for all employees. All or nothing so often, whilst sometimes sounding revolutionary, in practice offers nothing.

 

[mk12]

Good post.

 

[poster342002]

revolutionaries do not have a monopoly on good ideas

Do you think Sharia is a "good idea"? Is it something the SWP would oppose or support were it proposed for implementation in Britain?

 

[mk12]

Jesus christ, what the hell are you on about?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Or are you now admitting that the SWP are actually the junior partners in this setup?

'ang on poster me old mate, I thought it was an SWP front!

 

[moti]

reply to matt

yes I'll be at conference on Saturday

 

[mk12]

Why can't I send you a private message?!

 

[levien]

Someone hit the nail on the head when they said that the CC has stolen Johns clothes (lovely mental image.) The fact remains that this CC did release membership figures and circulation figures. That party notes is a useful guide to whats going on and what the national priorities are (if not an internal discussion document.) And also that in "building the party in the age of Mass movements" John Rees actually puts forward a route towards what John argues for.

John fails to engage with these facts in his document which is why his good points (criticism of national meetings being presented with the finished product to vote on) get lost. Our biggest problem in districts like mine and Johns is local organisation is a bit of a mess. When district/area committees are working and producing local district notes for branches then their is a mechanism for debate at the rank and file level of the party which can be transmitted up to the NC/party coucils etc and argued out.

Our fundermental problem is leading local comrades don't want to take time out of campaigning to sort out the local organisation and are to willing to let district organisers substitute for a proper elected and accountable district leadership. Maybe John M would be an asset in facilitating this but we can't saqy because he hasn't mentioned it. The debate around the review is less key as we all knew it was a problem and have multiple options to be debated at conference.

 

[moti]

eh?

blimey things times are tough...

why wouldn't the SWP try to promote the best attempt at building a party to the left of labour for years?

do you think millions of people are revolutionaries just waiting for the SWP to get in touch? No of course not, so why wouldn't we try to build the desperately needed broader political force?

What on earth is wrong with that? Do you want change?! (you can dislike it and do your own thing, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's needed)

 

[poster342002]

Jesus christ, what the hell are you on about?

Just asking a straightforward question. Quite pertinent in connection with forming alliances with people not necessarily interested in advancing the casue of socialism.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Just asking a straightforward question. Quite pertinent in connection with forming alliances with people not necessarily interested in advancing the casue of socialism.

Well, you know what politics makes.

 

[mk12]

party notes is a useful guide to whats going on and what the national priorities are

Is it? Don't you think John's right in saying that "Every week Party Notes would report excellent sales here and excellent sales there, but the overall figures were never given, never even spoken about in private."

And what about his views on party democracy? What about the drastic reduction in members? How have the CC accounted for this?

I think his underlying message is: "Having an over-optimistic perspective was not, however, the most serious mistake. The most serious mistake was not facing up to it." I have yet to hear a CC member honestly admit failures, or weaknesses, or disagreements. This isn't healthy in any organisation.

 

[poster342002]

the best attempt at building a party to the left of labour for years?

They haven't done that. They've created RESPECT, instead.

 

[mk12]

1 MP elected, to the left of Labour.

 

[moti]

reply to matt

>why can't i send you a private message

I don't know!

 

[poster342002]

Well, you know what politics makes.

A godawfull mess if the bedfellows are totally incompatible in terms of aims.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

A godawfull mess if the bedfellows are totally incompatible in terms of aims.

In the long term, I would have said so, yes. Were this not so they wouldn't be strange.

 

[articul8]

It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence.

That would be all well and good if as part of that fraternal debate you empasise the fact that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history". I agree it is necessary to engage and work with forces which don't accept the need for revolutionary demands. But ON NO ACCOUNT does this justify the attitude of self-censoring of socialist argument that the SWP adopts in its so-called 'united fronts'.

ANd how does it "strengthen" the revolutionary current to suppress directly socialist argument? Isn't the experience of Respect, that the SWP has put enormous amounts of energy into a loose, politically amorphous coalition with forces (some of which are downright reactionary) and is, as a result, failing to recruit and strengthen its own forces?