RESPECT/SWP Policy on Cartoons

[yourmom]

which I conceded when I said israel is not a fascist state. so I made it clear in my second post that I did not intend to suggest that all jews are nazis. it was that he continued with this line after I had clarified my comments that I found disingenuous.
however, like him you are only quoting one little bit of a whole post. In the whole post I drew a distinction between Jews and the Zionists, and how people who paint all Jews with the same brush should be confronted. Zionism is the political doctrine of apartheidism, and that is pretty like, not exactly like, the neo-Nazi arguments that peoples should live apart. And lastly I did say rather than being a deadly accurate comparison, I was claiming some poetic licence. Will Barry be writing to the the Jewish Labour Party MP Oona king who made similar comparisons? I am not the first to make this satirical comparison, and considering what has been said about the cartoons I found the attack hypocritical.
sorry mate, that's my opinion on my comments. But hey, who gives a fuck.

fraternal greetings comrade

Well said

 

[leec1]

the answer is to ban all religion. religion is the route of all evil its crap anyway those poor sods who died in the earthquake in kashmir and the boat that sunk in the red sea?? surely the majority were devoult(spelling??) muslims and look how "allah" repays them.!!!!!!

 

[neprimerimye]

.......yes. firstly, we need to show solidarity with muslims because they have shown solidarity to the left- via the anti war movement and by voting respect. do you think this is the correct time to confront the muslim community head on? secondly, this issue has become a simple test as to whose side you are on, are you for a racist cartoon or not? are you on the side of the BNP etc or the muslims

Do you support Free Speech? ............Not for racist and fascists.

Muslims demonstrating against the war on Iraq were not showing solidarity with the left. What a daft idea! They were opposing the war for their own reasons which may or may not have copincided with those of the socialist left.

As for the Muslim demonstrating in London it would seem that they were organised by the same group that attacked George Galloway the leader of Respect. It seems highly uinlikely that they are then Respect voters.

As for this idea of denying racists Free Speech given that this current govt supports racist immigration controls I take it that you will be No Platforming them at the next possible opportunity?

Muslims my friend are not a single undifferentiated mass. It is not a question of either/or as you put it. Socialists need to both defend Free Speech, yes even for racists, while opposing real attacks on Muslims.

The racist cartoons, not even published in this country for pitys sake, were a provocation. Only idiots like the former Al-Mahajaroun and Al-Garouba (not sure of that latter name) fall for such stupidities.

 

[articul8]

Zionism is the political doctrine of apartheidism, and that is pretty like, not exactly like, the neo-Nazi arguments that peoples should live apart.

This is what I was objecting to. I think you are conflating the whole complex history of zionism with contemporary ideologies of (extreme right Israeli) zionism.

Don't get me wrong - I'm no zionist. And I don't doubt that zionist ideologies are currently invoked by those who would seek to impose an apartheid style racial divide. But some of its earlier proponents would have been greatly distressed by the invocation of 'zionism' for such manifestly oppressive and unjust ends.

 

[JimPage]

Muslims demonstrating against the war on Iraq were not showing solidarity with the left. What a daft idea! They were opposing the war for their own reasons which may or may not have copincided with those of the socialist left.

............. however they followed it up with Respect votes in a number of areas- and i understand a number of them are being drawn into progressive politics as a result of this. tower hamlets will see the first socialist council in the UK in may and its hardly going to help things by condemning islam.

As for this idea of denying racists Free Speech given that this current govt supports racist immigration controls I take it that you will be No Platforming them at the next possible opportunity?

........ you can do what you can do when you can do it. in the absence of a national antifascist organisation- there is very little you can do on your own

Socialists need to both defend Free Speech, yes even for racists

......... what exactly is wrong with the well established principle of no platform and no free speech for fascists? in scotland this is imposed by the SSP. since when does any reasonable interpretation of socialism mean free speech for the like of the BNP?.

 

[TremulousTetra]

This is what I was objecting to. I think you are conflating the whole complex history of zionism with contemporary ideologies of (extreme right Israeli) zionism.

Don't get me wrong - I'm no zionist. And I don't doubt that zionist ideologies are currently invoked by those who would seek to impose an apartheid style racial divide. But some of its earlier proponents would have been greatly distressed by the invocation of 'zionism' for such manifestly oppressive and unjust ends.

Yes I'll concede that, but I doubt that was Barrys objection, don't you.

Frats Rmp3

 

[neprimerimye]

............. however they followed it up with Respect votes in a number of areas- and i understand a number of them are being drawn into progressive politics as a result of this. tower hamlets will see the first socialist council in the UK in may and its hardly going to help things by condemning islam.

........ you can do what you can do when you can do it. in the absence of a national antifascist organisation- there is very little you can do on your own

......... what exactly is wrong with the well established principle of no platform and no free speech for fascists? in scotland this is imposed by the SSP. since when does any reasonable interpretation of socialism mean free speech for the like of the BNP?.

Muslims voted in greater numbers for the Liberal Democrats as a party that opposed the war. Other than voting for such parties as Respect and the Lib Dems there is little evidence to suggest that sizeable numbers of British Muslims have become politically active since the invasion of Iraq.

The No Platform policy refers to fascists excusively not to racists as such. It was developed as a policy to address the threat that fascism poses to Free Speech as such.

I would reply to your remark about Tower Hamlets but it's just too funny........

 

[JimPage]

Muslims voted in greater numbers for the Liberal Democrats as a party that opposed the war. Other than voting for such parties as Respect and the Lib Dems there is little evidence to suggest that sizeable numbers of British Muslims have become politically active since the invasion of Iraq.

>>>>> well voting respect is a start dont you think?

The No Platform policy refers to fascists excusively not to racists as such. It was developed as a policy to address the threat that fascism poses to Free Speech as such.
>>>>>>>>>>> not to my recollection. some racist giving it a big one in the pub would be treated the same as a BNP member selling papers

I would reply to your remark about Tower Hamlets but it's just too funny........

>>>>>>>> i think respect have the momentum to win tower hamlets. i think it will be a disaster for the left if it happens- but its going to happen

respect, for now, arent going away

 

[neprimerimye]

>>>>>>>> i think respect have the momentum to win tower hamlets. i think it will be a disaster for the left if it happens- but its going to happen

respect, for now, arent going away

Oh my apologies I thought you wrote that socialists would form the next admin in Tower Hamlets. I didn't realise you meant Respect.

Which event really doesn't bother me too much. After all Respect is going to dissolve sooner or later the only questions are when, how and how much will this sorry detour have damaged the SWP. It really doesn't matter much who runs councils anymore does it? They don't have any power to abuse. Whatever happens the people of Tower Hamlets will get shafted i fear.

 

[leftistangel]

"Muslims aren’t a race" how profound. It may have escaped your notice but the vast majority are also non-Caucasian and of immigrant background. That fact certainly hasn’t escaped the notice of the European far right who have now selected Muslims as their number one victim of choice. It’s nice to know they’ll find anti-racist alibis via shite arguments like the one above.

So what? This is not a difference of shading, but fact. Islam is a multi-race faith which contains every race within it. So to criticise Islam is therefore, by definition, NOT racist and never can be. You're probably correct about such bodies as the Vlaams Blok (as it used to be) and the BNP. They're both undoubtedly racially bigoted parties with roots in National Socialism. But this goes both ways. The trouble is that mainstream parties have abdicated their responsibility to speak out about the problems of a growing and active Muslim minority in European countries, for fear of being CALLED racists. Thus the ACTUAL racists are left as the only people prepared to discuss this increasingly important matter. They don't need me to give them alibis. Mr Griffin was quite smart enough to spot that all by himself, and it is the absolute (and very uncomfortable) truth that the BNP were the first people in Britain to draw attention to the kind of poison being preached in many British mosques. That is something the mainstream parties should be ashamed of, and snarling that the BNP are racist won't alter it.

There already exists state censorship of speech. Inciting racial hatred has been illegal since the 1960s. There are all manner of public order offences that out law speech...

This almost certainly mistaken ban is as you rightly say, a great disadvantage to those who now defend free speech. In fact, this was precisely the reason that some opposed it at the time, though of course they were accused of being racialists. The US has no such law, and has managed to remove a lot of racial bigotry from public discourse by moral force. I have also identified the (Tory) 1986 Public Order Act as a menace to free speech, as has Peter Tatchell.

If free speech is absolute would you defend the right to publicly advocate paedophilia, murder or rape?...

No, because incitement to criminal action is not protected speech. I rely on the US First Amendment and the related case law as the best law protecting free speech in the world, and the model I would like this country to follow. Thus clearly excludes incitement from the protection of the Bill of Rights.

I’m sorry but freedom of speech does not give people the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre as the old saying goes.

It's not an 'old saying' but part of a US Supreme Court Judgement in Schenk vs United States, 1919. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said Schenk's call for conscripted soldiers to resist the draft was equivalent, in wartime, to shouting fire in a crowded theatre (the Court was pretty hard on opponents of that war). Schenk, a socialist, went to prison for six months. Holmes said ""The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." But in judgements since, Holmes's view has been modified considerably and in 1969 the court (rightly in my view) ruled that words complained of would have to be the likely cause of an "imminent lawless action" to forfeit the protection of the Amendment.

 

[Matt S]

>>It really doesn't matter much who runs councils anymore does it? They don't have any power to abuse. Whatever happens the people of Tower Hamlets will get shafted i fear. >>

I agree with the last sentence here, but the first part is simply wrong. I belong to a small district council, and even here the things that we do make a tangible difference to peoples lives. All the more so for a large London borough like Tower Hamlets....

Matt

 

[neprimerimye]

I agree with the last sentence here, but the first part is simply wrong. I belong to a small district council, and even here the things that we do make a tangible difference to peoples lives. All the more so for a large London borough like Tower Hamlets....

Matt

This is probably meat for a different thread entirely. But since you raise the subject what powers remain to a council that can substantially change the lives of a large portion of the residents of that area? Just for fun heres a few questions for you.

Can you build more homes for people?

Can you provide better transport?

More leisure and sports facilities?

Can you build hospices or high quality sheltered housing for the elderly?

Can councils do any of the above without the substantial involvment of private profit making companies?

 

[JoePolitix]

So what? This is not a difference of shading, but fact. Islam is a multi-race faith which contains every race within it. So to criticise Islam is therefore, by definition, NOT racist and never can be. You're probably correct about such bodies as the Vlaams Blok (as it used to be) and the BNP. They're both undoubtedly racially bigoted parties with roots in National Socialism. But this goes both ways. The trouble is that mainstream parties have abdicated their responsibility to speak out about the problems of a growing and active Muslim minority in European countries, for fear of being CALLED racists. Thus the ACTUAL racists are left as the only people prepared to discuss this increasingly important matter. They don't need me to give them alibis. Mr Griffin was quite smart enough to spot that all by himself, and it is the absolute (and very uncomfortable) truth that the BNP were the first people in Britain to draw attention to the kind of poison being preached in many British mosques. That is something the mainstream parties should be ashamed of, and snarling that the BNP are racist won't alter it.

What planet are you living on? Your assertion that “to criticise Islam is therefore, by definition, NOT racist and never can be” is about as useful as saying criticising asylum seekers can never be racist or criticising Jews can never be racist. Neither of these groups are ‘races’ and yet clearly it is quite possible to be racist with reference to these groups.( I actually believe that ‘race’ itself is a social construct and doesn’t actually exist but that doesn’t mean that the ideology of racism isn’t very real)

You implicitly concede this point by adding the caveat that “You're probably correct about such bodies as the Vlaams Blok (as it used to be) and the BNP”. I think the likes of the BNP are probably more concerned with the fact that most Muslims have brown skin rather than the finer areas of theological divergence.

The claim that the BNP were the first to “draw attention to the kind of poison being preached in many British mosques” is utterly false. If we take the case of the Finsbury Park Mosque, members of that Mosque were alerting police to Abu Hamza soon after he seized control.

The police seemed to have cocked up but this can’t be seen as a part of a pattern of “political correctness”. Stop and search of Asians has increased by 300% since 9/11 not to mention the armed raids and the deportations, such as the highly dubious deportation of Barber Ahmed to the US last year. Heazel Bliers said Muslims should “get used” to being stop and searched and just this week Blair said that “political correctness” should not stand in the way of rooting out the fanatics.

The idea that politicians have been unwilling “to speak out about the problems of a growing and active Muslim minority in European countries, for fear of being CALLED racists” is without foundation.

This almost certainly mistaken ban is as you rightly say, a great disadvantage to those who now defend free speech. In fact, this was precisely the reason that some opposed it at the time, though of course they were accused of being racialists. The US has no such law, and has managed to remove a lot of racial bigotry from public discourse by moral force. I have also identified the (Tory) 1986 Public Order Act as a menace to free speech, as has Peter Tatchell.

This would be the same Peter Tatchell who campaigned to ban the Muslim scholar Yusif al-Qaradawi from speaking at city hall and for preventing Jamaican dancehall artists from entering the U.K? Clearly a selective defender of free speech.

What I want to know is who has been imprisoned for inciting racial hatred and other incitement offences do you think shouldn’t have been? Abu Hamza perhaps?

No, because incitement to criminal action is not protected speech. I rely on the US First Amendment and the related case law as the best law protecting free speech in the world, and the model I would like this country to follow. Thus clearly excludes incitement from the protection of the Bill of Rights.

So you admit then that you are not in favour of unlimited, indivisible free speech then?

Yes you are correct that US case law excludes incitement offences from protection under the first amendment. Words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite a breach of the peace” are not protected.

But this backs up my case not yours.

It's not an 'old saying' but part of a US Supreme Court Judgement in Schenk vs United States, 1919. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said Schenk's call for conscripted soldiers to resist the draft was equivalent, in wartime, to shouting fire in a crowded theatre (the Court was pretty hard on opponents of that war). Schenk, a socialist, went to prison for six months. Holmes said ""The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." But in judgements since, Holmes's view has been modified considerably and in 1969 the court (rightly in my view) ruled that words complained of would have to be the likely cause of an "imminent lawless action" to forfeit the protection of the Amendment.

Yes all very interesting but how does this refute the point I was making? In fact it merely underlines the point I was making that even in the USA, where there is a particularly significant cultural value attached to free speech, there are limits on what people are allowed to say.

Heres another saying for you “Freedom for the Pike means death to the minnow”. It’s even less old than the previous one.

 

[leftistangel]

What planet are you living on? Your assertion that “to criticise Islam is therefore, by definition, NOT racist and never can be” is about as useful as saying criticising asylum seekers can never be racist or criticising Jews can never be racist..

I certainly will assert it. It is the case. I am not sure what you mean by 'asylum seekers' I am all in favour of welcoming actual asylum seekers, but I am opposed to imigration for big business. I would be interested to know what is 'racist' about that. Those who choose to use this method of moving countries are not a racial category, but a group of people who have chosen this method, defined by that.

AS for 'criticising Jews' - well, criticising Jews for BEING Jews is obviously racialist. But your assertion below that the Jews are not a race is absurd. There's a simple test of this. Do racists continue to persecute Jews who assimilate entirely with the host nation, renounce all non-racial characteristics of their Jewishness - special dress, religious Observance, separate Sabbath, etc? To which the answer is, yes they do, to the point where the Nazi's dragged Edith Stein, a Roman Catholic convert, theologian and Nun, out of her RC convent and murdered her in Auschwitz for being a Jew. And of course they murdered small children and babies who couldn't possibly have any ideas about their Jewishness, for the same reason, and produced complex charts to calculate whether a person was officially classified as Jewish or not, regardless of his or her own view of racial status, religion, etc.

Neither of these groups are ‘races’ and yet clearly it is quite possible to be racist with reference to these groups.( I actually believe that ‘race’ itself is a social construct and doesn’t actually exist but that doesn’t mean that the ideology of racism isn’t very real)..

One of them undoubtedly is, whether it wants to be or not. See above. The other obviously isn't. Yes, racialists do use these terms in a way clearly intended to convey and disguise racial prejudice. But others do not use them in this way. As to whether 'race' doesn't actually exist. I wish you were right, hold to the view that there is one race, the human race, and subscribe to the non-racial theory of 'cultural capital' to explain the undoubted differences between ethnic groups, but it is the liberal authorities who these days insist on racial classifications with a zeal unequalled since the days of Hitler. This change from colour-blindness to racial categorisation is one of the most interesting facts about modern politics, but nobody questions it. In the days when I went on anti-NF marches, we were concerned about ensuring that men were judged (and categorised) not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. A good principle, it still seems to me.

You implicitly concede this point by adding the caveat that “You're probably correct about such bodies as the Vlaams Blok (as it used to be) and the BNP”. I think the likes of the BNP are probably more concerned with the fact that most Muslims have brown skin rather than the finer areas of theological divergence..

Nothing "implicit" about this clear explicit point, nor is it a concession. I'm arguing with you as one civilised reasoning person to another, so I acknowledge the weaknesses or faults in my case rather than pretending they don't exist. There's no point in my doing this if you don't abide by the same rules of honest fair dealing. I specifically ACCEPT that the BNP and the VB use Islam as a cover for racial prejudice, because it's true and important. But that does not mean that I imply any general acceptance of
the idea that criticism, mockery and ridicule of Islam is coded bigotry. Muslims form a distinct voluntary and self-defining politico-religious group, who are and ought to be subject to criticism for their views from those who don't agree with them. By contrast to the Edith Stein point above, apostate Muslims are not pursued by the foes of Muslims despite their apostasy. Au contraire, they (Ibn Warraq being one good example) have to go into hiding to escape the death sentence prescribed for them under Sharia law by their former co-religionists.

The claim that the BNP were the first to “draw attention to the kind of poison being preached in many British mosques” is utterly false. If we take the case of the Finsbury Park Mosque, members of that Mosque were alerting police to Abu Hamza soon after he seized control.

Is it false? I rather think it's not, but would be prepared to concede the point if you can produce any such public attention-drawing (I don't think confidential phone calls to the cops count)by anyone else before the BNP began publishing details of the sorts of speeches being made by Imams in British mosques. I tend to think the police have a point when they say that it makes much more sense to leave places like this untouched so you can watch who comes and goes. Hamza's a small-time hoodlum who has attained fame because of his striking good looks, don't you think?

The police seemed to have cocked up but this can’t be seen as a part of a pattern of “political correctness”. Stop and search of Asians has increased by 300% since 9/11 not to mention the armed raids and the deportations, such as the highly dubious deportation of Barber Ahmed to the US last year. Heazel Bliers said Muslims should “get used” to being stop and searched and just this week Blair said that “political correctness” should not stand in the way of rooting out the fanatics..

Well he would say that, wouldn't he? Since Muslims were responsible for the terrorist attacks, and identified themselves as such, it was reasonable, wasn't it, to suspect Muslims more than other people. And since, in this country, most Muslims are Asian in origin, then this is a perfectly reasonable course of action too. In increase of 300% sounds a lot, but I've learned to be suspicious of percentages. What are the actual NUMBERS? AS for PC, you only have to see the way the police treated the march two weeks ago, and compare with other instances.

The idea that politicians have been unwilling “to speak out about the problems of a growing and active Muslim minority in European countries, for fear of being CALLED racists” is without foundation...

Is it? Name the politicians who have spoken out, then. Direct me to their speeches.

This would be the same Peter Tatchell who campaigned to ban the Muslim scholar Yusif al-Qaradawi from speaking at city hall and for preventing Jamaican dancehall artists from entering the U.K? Clearly a selective defender of free speech....

The boundary here is not one of opinion, but of intended effect. If you tell people to kill others, then you are INCITING, not expressing a point of view, something Tatchell defends in all circumstances.

What I want to know is who has been imprisoned for inciting racial hatred and other incitement offences do you think shouldn’t have been? Abu Hamza perhaps?

So you admit then that you are not in favour of unlimited, indivisible free speech then?

Yes you are correct that US case law excludes incitement offences from protection under the first amendment. Words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite a breach of the peace” are not protected.

But this backs up my case not yours.

Yes all very interesting but how does this refute the point I was making? In fact it merely underlines the point I was making that even in the USA, where there is a particularly significant cultural value attached to free speech, there are limits on what people are allowed to say.

You are confusing two things 1) the idea that something can be absolutely good and so worth protecting in all circumstances and 2) the need for law to set rational, enforceable, unambiguous limits even to the most precious liberties, based upon preserving the character of those liberties. A right of self-defence, equally absolute, is nonetheless limited by law to ensure that it is not advanced as an excuse for vengeance. Speech is an extension of thought and should remain free as long as it is such. The intentional direct incitement of a violent or illegal act is in effect part of that ACT, cannot be viewed as verbalised thought or as part of civilised debate. The only problem is setting the boundaries of the absolute, which is that people should be free to think and say what they like.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Interestingly the danish editor who published the cartoon's is a very close associate of leadng Neo-Con Daniel Pipes of "Project for the New American Century" fame.

 

[Matt S]

Apologies for leaving this thread - I'd forgotten I'd posted on it, to be honest!

It's true that some of the powers you point to have been taken away from local government - I'd be the first to argue that councils have nowhere near enough discretionary power. However, a list of central government constraints is not the same as saying that who controls a council makes no difference to peoples lives!

For a start, some of the areas you touch upon can be changed by local councils. Better transport for example - yes, in Oxford we are improving
cycling facilities and pedestrian access, as well as Park and Ride facilities. Leisure - yes, the City Council just recently built a brand new swimming pool
and gym for an area that didn't have access to cheap leisure facilities.

In the Green budget for Oxford released on Monday, we put in money for free swimming for Under 16s, for free cavity wall and loft-insulation for those in fuel poverty, for a large ecorenovation scheme of council housing, for an expansion of local food schemes and a massive scheme of investment in allotments. Did we radically overthrow the neoliberal system? No, of course not. But our priorities are getting into the budget - and if the Lib Dems or Tories were in administration, you can bet your house that this stuff wouldn't feature...

Matt

P.S. If people are interested in the Green budget for Oxford, see www.matthewsellwood.blogspot.com and www.greenoxford.com for County Council details.

This is probably meat for a different thread entirely. But since you raise the subject what powers remain to a council that can substantially change the lives of a large portion of the residents of that area? Just for fun heres a few questions for you.

Can you build more homes for people?

Can you provide better transport?

More leisure and sports facilities?

Can you build hospices or high quality sheltered housing for the elderly?

Can councils do any of the above without the substantial involvment of private profit making companies?

 

[neprimerimye]

It's true that some of the powers you point to have been taken away from local government - I'd be the first to argue that councils have nowhere near enough discretionary power. However, a list of central government constraints is not the same as saying that who controls a council makes no difference to peoples lives!

For a start, some of the areas you touch upon can be changed by local councils. Better transport for example - yes, in Oxford we are improving
cycling facilities and pedestrian access, as well as Park and Ride facilities. Leisure - yes, the City Council just recently built a brand new swimming pool
and gym for an area that didn't have access to cheap leisure facilities.

In the Green budget for Oxford released on Monday, we put in money for free swimming for Under 16s, for free cavity wall and loft-insulation for those in fuel poverty, for a large ecorenovation scheme of council housing, for an expansion of local food schemes and a massive scheme of investment in allotments. Did we radically overthrow the neoliberal system? No, of course not. But our priorities are getting into the budget - and if the Lib Dems or Tories were in administration, you can bet your house that this stuff wouldn't feature...

Matt

With all due respect Matt the measures you discuss are pretty bog standard for many councils. Nothing that you mention will substantially change the lives of anybody in Oxford.

It's all well and good to subsidise insulation but where are your plans to build new homes for Oxfords working people? As for stuff like allotments and free swimming for the kiddies when what working people need are jobs and homes which you say zero about.

Sorry but most of the stuff you detail is just faddist faffing about. You can't challenge neo-liberalism cos at bottom the greenery is pro-capitalist.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The Cartoons and the Neocon
Daniel Pipes and the Danish Editor:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sugg02142006.html

 

[mutley]

With all due respect Matt the measures you discuss are pretty bog standard for many councils. Nothing that you mention will substantially change the lives of anybody in Oxford.

It's all well and good to subsidise insulation but where are your plans to build new homes for Oxfords working people? As for stuff like allotments and free swimming for the kiddies when what working people need are jobs and homes which you say zero about.

Sorry but most of the stuff you detail is just faddist faffing about. You can't challenge neo-liberalism cos at bottom the greenery is pro-capitalist.

However, i think that many would say that an ounce of the politics of new swimming pools, insulation and so on is worth a ton of detailed marxist analysis, if that analysis does not lead to concrete gains for working people. It's right to be mercilessly critical but it's also right to demand strategies which will actually lead to progress for working people (however modest).
And i'm afraid concrete strategies are something that we've yet to see in your posts Neprimye (or whatever ur name is)

Matt how did you fund the new swimming pool? Did you have to a partnership with private finance in some form?

 

[neprimerimye]

However, i think that many would say that an ounce of the politics of new swimming pools, insulation and so on is worth a ton of detailed marxist analysis, if that analysis does not lead to concrete gains for working people.

Given that the SWP regularly publishes "detailed marxist analysis" which does not lead to "concrete gains for working people" what does that say of the SWP?

 

[Matt S]

nep,

I'm not sure where your outright hostility is coming from - I don't think that putting hundreds of thousands of pounds into poverty relief rather than nicely trimmed verges for North Oxford is insignificant - and I think that the hundreds of people who will have warmer homes next winter (to take just one example) might quarrel that the Greens are producing nothing of any import with their involvement in local politics...

Of course you are correct in saying that reformist social democracy isn't
going to overthrow capitalism - but that isn't what you challenged me over. You said that which party controls a local council makes NO DIFFERENCE to peoples lives. That is clearly not true, and that is what I am trying to disprove, not whether you can overthrow capitalism from Oxford Town Hall or not.

Vulnerable people would be worse off if the Tories ran Oxford City Council than the current situation - thats all I'm arguing. If you honestly think that that isn't true, and that a few *million* pounds here and there (or billions across all of local govnmt in the UK) doesn't matter, then I'm a bit mystified as to what world you live in.

Matt

P.S. And, of course, insinuating that Greens have nothing to say about jobs or housing is utterly untrue, as you would know if you spent five minutes listening to people rather than shoving them into stereotypes. But that, again, is a wider argument which doesn't focus on the point we were discussing.

 

[Matt S]

P.S. Mutley, no, it came from the Council's capital fund. Another thing that we are proposing to do is to buy the Jericho boatyard from british waterways, which is trying to evict the boatyard there (currently squatted by local boaters). If the Council buys it then we can devise a housing scheme which will provide affordable homes *and* a community centre *and* retain the boatyard....again, using municipal funds for the common good.

Would be much better if we could build council housing on the site, which again is where nep's arguments are very valid, but does that mean that we shouldn't buy it at all? I think not.

 

[mutley]

Given that the SWP regularly publishes "detailed marxist analysis" which does not lead to "concrete gains for working people" what does that say of the SWP?

What party/group/tendency u in again?

There are plenty to choose from, and marxism without even a semblance of collective action well..

Some might say that that's a sign of some form of personality defect..

ps cheers Matt

 

[neprimerimye]

nep,

I'm not sure where your outright hostility is coming from - I don't think that putting hundreds of thousands of pounds into poverty relief rather than nicely trimmed verges for North Oxford is insignificant - and I think that the hundreds of people who will have warmer homes next winter (to take just one example) might quarrel that the Greens are producing nothing of any import with their involvement in local politics...

Of course you are correct in saying that reformist social democracy isn't
going to overthrow capitalism - but that isn't what you challenged me over. You said that which party controls a local council makes NO DIFFERENCE to peoples lives. That is clearly not true, and that is what I am trying to disprove, not whether you can overthrow capitalism from Oxford Town Hall or not.

Vulnerable people would be worse off if the Tories ran Oxford City Council than the current situation - thats all I'm arguing. If you honestly think that that isn't true, and that a few *million* pounds here and there (or billions across all of local govnmt in the UK) doesn't matter, then I'm a bit mystified as to what world you live in.

Matt

P.S. And, of course, insinuating that Greens have nothing to say about jobs or housing is utterly untrue, as you would know if you spent five minutes listening to people rather than shoving them into stereotypes. But that, again, is a wider argument which doesn't focus on the point we were discussing.

Matt I'm not at all hostile to you personally. But I am to your party which is not based on either a program for workers power or on the organisations of the working class. As such it is of little interest to me to be frank. And while I applaud what positive measures local councils may be able to achieve I repeat they do not substantially change the lives of any sizeable number of working people for the better.

 

[neprimerimye]

What party/group/tendency u in again?

There are plenty to choose from, and marxism without even a semblance of collective action well..

Some might say that that's a sign of some form of personality defect..

ps cheers Matt

Like many I belong to the largest tendency on the British far left the party of ex-members of the SWP.

Some might say that if the only collective action the SWP can manage these days is to act as shills for Kitty Galloway that's a sign of some form of colllective delusion.

 

[mutley]

Like many I belong to the largest tendency on the British far left the party of ex-members of the SWP.

Some might say that if the only collective action the SWP can manage these days is to act as shills for Kitty Galloway that's a sign of some form of colllective delusion.

At least it's collective... even if it was all we do..

 

[neprimerimye]

At least it's collective... even if it was all we do..

Perhaps then you should seek group therapy for your collective delusion?