You don't have to.
Here's the Weekly Worker's take on the debacle:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/737/index.html
''like to see the SWP simply disappear up its own
Orifice [edited for clarity. 'scuse.].''
From WW --- However, not all LA members present were prepared to go along with the charade. Tansy Hoskins, a close fellow-traveller of the SWP and former London assembly election candidate, loudly complained that comrade Rees had been scapegoated for the failings of the SWP as a whole, following the disastrous results in May.
Distortion, Hoskin, fellow traveller of Rees.
Why do they call him 'comrade' ?
Distortion, failure of LA as a whole. It was LA meeting, not an SWP one.
-----
From WW --- For her part, comrade German was unable to disguise her anger and frustration.
She had given everything she could during the London assembly campaign, she said, as had John, yet some people had unfairly targeted him.
People should not mock the poverty [political] stricken, even when self admitted.
And the majority of people had fairly targeted him.
-----
From WW --- It goes without saying that the SWP rank and file has been kept completely in the dark as to the nature of the furious row that has engulfed the whole leadership. This has not only been about allocating the blame for the Respect debacle, but over the future direction of the SWP and its immediate strategy.
In what religion does the congregation know what the priesthood are doing ?
So if the arch bishops fall out amongst themselves, why should it concern the mass, it doesn't apply in most churches.
The blame for the 'respect debacle, lies with all those who joined it, why one can only wonder did any group make an alliance with the SWP, and still call themselves 'socialist' ?
The future direction is ''the bottomless pit'', same place they've been since they started in the 70's.
Its immediate strategy is to continue as usual, which means again no strategy.
A most interesting line, >
'''but over the future direction of the SWP and its immediate strategy.'''
Why should the CPGB be concerned as to the future direction of the SWP, surely their only concern is to politically defeat them, to see the SWP disappear, to win over their members, to re-educate them as socialists, but no they express 'concern'.
-----
From WW --- Party Notes explains that this was an amendment “submitted from the floor, which was accepted by the mover of the motion”. On the one hand, it expresses the very real and widespread frustration among the rank and file over the secrecy and patronising lack of transparency that is part and parcel of SWP culture. On the other hand, however, the desire for the “argument” to be “avoided” is completely misplaced.
Squabbling is not 'argument'.
Will someone explain to the CPGB what the meaning of 'culture' is, please.
-----
From WW --- However, another minority were taken with Respect. They went ‘native’, seeing it as a principled and worthwhile formation in itself, a way out of the sectarian ghetto and into the big time - not just another ‘united front’, designed to win sympathisers and recruits for ‘the revolutionary party’.
If the SWP is unprincipled, then Marx was correct, idealism is upside down, so much for 'going native'.
Tony Cliff/Gluckstein directed the International socialist group, in the early '70's to 'found a party', [should have been a bring a bottle one, it would have been a much saner proposition] following a split in the 'Workers revolutionary party.
Another failed attempt to set up a party, Cliff simple went 'dustbin diving''.
There had been political opposition in the Socialist Labour League to founding a 'party' at the time, the theoretical base was flawed, but the members brought it to a stop.
Unfortunately they could not correct the split, mainly due to a need for further investigation as to why a move to found a party had been taken and what should have been the historical/theoretical base on which to correctly move forward to building a party.
Also a correct analysis of the 'ruling class' of the present time.
None of which have since been really clarified, at least not publicly.
The move to attempt to found a coalition, which later would be used to found a party, the Respect venture, is also flawed, even more so, at least the SLL members were serious socialists, the Respect coalition from the start has been totally unprincipled, and not just the SWP.
Nothing more than an attempt to chase after the petite Bourgeois, of all varieties. From its start its been a rightward move.
-----
From WW --- That was certainly the message that came from the mouth of the SWP’s then top leader. As Respect’s national secretary, John Rees claimed that he spoke for the millions excluded from politics, that principles counted for nothing.
Does that speak for itself ?
-----
From WW --- He clearly envisaged a distinct Respect stage on the long road to socialism. A cross-class Respect government - including SWP ministers presumably - would enact an old Labour programme of social democratic reforms. A progressive form of capitalism. Though he was never so foolish, or honest, to actually theorise it, his line was implicit.
Interesting that the CPGB refers to it ''as the long road''.
The rest is just idiocy.
-----
From WW --- At Respect’s January 24 2004 launch conference, it was John Rees who summed up the SWP’s behaviour in opposing principled amendments, proposed by the CPGB and others, to the launch declaration: “We … voted against the things we believed in, because, while the people here are important, they are not as important as the millions out there. We are reaching to the people locked out of politics. We voted for what they want.”
How would Rees know ''what they want' ?
Anyway, not to matter now, they have all been proven incorrect.
Time to pack it all in.
-----
From WW --- He has deservedly been deposed (and may soon be removed from the CC too). But will the SWP learn the lessons? In order to do so the membership needs to have the “argument”. If their organisation does not provide them with the means to do so, they need look no further than the Weekly Worker.
If he deserved to be deposed, then so do the rest of them.
Its not a matter of 'will the SWP'' learn the lessson, that presuposes that the SWP will continue in being [and clarifies the real position of the CPGB, forget the rhetoric, they also cannot do without the SWP.] its a matter of ''will the SWP members'' now realise its only a Utopian dream they are living, and disband the asinine farce completely.
The article is worth the study, as it also reveals some of the philosophical view of the CPGB. Don't be fooled into just thinking its about the SWP.
