Salma Yaqoob on question time tonight (19/1)
- Thread starter mutley
- Start date
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Sorry, I don't understand your question. It doesn't make any sense. udo?butchersapron said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
well if it is, it is not because of any peculiarity of enlightenment on my part.it is the common analysis of the SWP,and I believe the only way of understanding the 'Marxist' analytical method. (not disregarding the debate, "Will the real Karl Marx please stand up!?)kasheem said:
it may be interesting though in the midst of this squabble between bickering left-wingers if you were to explain why you found it enlightening, and from what political perspective you come.
Respect. ResistanceMP3
ResistanceMP3 said:
What I thought was interesting was you explained why 'sectarianism' is bad, saying you have to have a dialectical approach (only recently worked out what that means), people don't exist in a vacuum etc. I have been wondering why so many people here apparently hate the SWP.
Now personally (for what it's worth) I don't think the SWP is doing the right thing. Even if I agree with you about being pragmatic and non-sectarian. I don't think Galloway has achieved or is going to achieve anything. A single MP or even 20 MPs are actually worthless in the political (parliamentary) system we have. You're not going to be on any committees. You're not going to get many chances to speak. If you're ever in the position of having the deciding vote it's probably because the other parties have decided on how an issue goes together so it's a fluke. It'll be sent back from the Lords and they'll make sure they get it right the second time.
If I was in charge of a political group and had to work out a strategy to influence politics I would either go for taking over a local council and build up support on the ground, then expanding from there.. or I would go into one of the major existing parties (eg Labour) and try to build influence to change its policies from within.
Or another way of influencing the big parties, focus just on propaganda, get into the media and use that to influence them like that (quite difficult unless you have loads of money).
I just think starting up a new party on the national level when you're an outsider and thinking you're going to win power is extremely utopian.
The only justification for setting up a new parliamentary party is to split off votes from the party closest to you as a way of putting pressure on them. Like UKIP and the Conservative Party. I don't know how well that works.
As for my perspective.. I don't really know. I'm probably what you'd call a 'reformist', I'm against free trade/neo-liberalism, I think the government should intervene more in the economy and focus on raising living standards for everyone and less on billionaire's profit margins. But I think there should be a balance, I think 'tax and spend' is counterproductive. Regulations, interest rates and targetted loans (by taking back the Bank of England) are a better way of getting the private sector to do what you want.
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
Kasheem, I wouldn't deny Respect's right to fight and win Parliamentary seats even if they only win one or two. That's their democratic right.
kasheem said:
2 points. First, we agree with you that 1, 2 or 20 mp's won't change things fundamentally (and we need to not lose sight of that!) For me it's about spreading a different set of ideas, that will then (hopefully!) give people more confidence to fight back.
Second, you say you're for the govt intervening more in the economy, but you're against tax and spend. Aren't you contradicting yourself or do you have some other kind of contradiction in mind?
We're against neo-liberalism, but i think that it flows from the dynamics of competition in a class society. Partcular (hegemonic) ruling classes want to crack open the markets in either countries that they don't control, or parts of the 'social' economy that are not wholly geared to profit making, like health and education. Hence the drive to free trade and privatisation.
Ultimately it takes class and anti-imperialist struggles to stop these things. The electoral strategy is a political intervention designed to bolster and encourage such struggles.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I presume you stumbled upon this site, found it inhabited with lefties, and took an interest in trying to work out what makes lefties tick? I think it speaks volumes that having been on here sometime you have not been able to glean from the discussions of the lefties this point until now. I don't think that is your fault whatsoever, I think it reflects the fact that the urban 75 political current affairs community squabbling and bickering is far too concerned with the minutiae of Inter-left politics rather than Politics, and as I've said before is poor advert for the left. (Hope I don't get censored again for saying that by the anarchists and the editor.kasheem said:
)you say "Now personally (for what it's worth) I don't think ". What it is worth, is a great deal, Trotsky argued.
Trotsky argued that the working class was basically split into three groups. On the one side there is a tiny minority of Fascists. On the other side there is another tiny minority, the Revolutionary Socialist. In the middle is the vast majority, what can loosely be described as the reformists, as you describe yourself. Trotsky argued that these are the people that Revolutionary Socialist should concentrate on. And quite rightly in my opinion. I would go as far as to say that any active member of the SWP who wastes his/her time arguing with the sectarians on here has no political justification whatsoever. I would argue they do disservice to the left as a whole, because they help to perpetuate the Monty Python life of Brian style caricature of the left, which is sadly too realistic.
And I would argue that even amusement is a lame excuse.And so if people are going to waste their time is on the Internet forums I would argue debating fraternally the issues of politics with people like yourself, reformists, is the least worst option. (I personally have been retired from work for 20 years, and from politics for three, so I have a lot of time to waste, and so claim special dispensation.
)----------
I think I think my comrades on the SWP made it clear that we probably agree with most of what you say about the futility of the party political system in this country, especially for tiny minority parties such as respect. But I think you misunderstand the SWP perspective of respect, and missed a crucial comment in made in my earlier post to neprimerimye "to provide a milieu for the type of political organisation that you seem to aspire to. "
As revolutionary socialists the SWP believes the Parliamentary road to socialism is bankrupt. But on the other hand, contradictorily or dialectically, we don't believe in abstaining from the political process. So we enter the political process in partnership, equal partnership, with reformists like yourself who do believe reform of the system is possible. We do so under no illusions. We do so knowing that any gains that reformists can make are a labour of Sisyphus, a Labour that can soon be rolled back by the ruling class. But, we also do so knowing it is the role of revolutionary socialist in the here and now is not just to stand back and shout at people how futile their efforts are, it is the duty Revolutionary Socialist to intervene in that process, to be engaged with the working-class as equals. The role of Revolutionary Socialist is to show that gains can be won in the here and now and the best tactics for doing so are revolutionary tactics. This is what we believe, revolutionary tactics are the best tactics. But we cannot just impose these on the reformists, there has to be a dynamic tension between the Revolutionary and the reformist. A dialectical tension where the reformists are pulling in one direction, conciliation and to the right, and Revolutionary Socialist are pulling in the other direction, towards confrontation and revolution. But being dialectical process, it is NOT just a one-way procession. The Revolutionary has to be adaptable, to be prepared to retreat as well as advance towards revolution, by listening to the people who are working with, and being aware of the current balance of class forces. History shows that the Revolutionary will also at times have to run to catch up with the reformists as reformists dash towards a revolution the historical circumstances have created, and even at times (you may be shocked to hear) hold the reformists back from revolution which is premature (try Trotsky's history of the Russian Revolution, the July Days chapter.) I suppose simply what I'm trying say about this process, is that the process is not deterministic and simple, it is complicated open to twists and turns, and mistakes. And that yes, respect may turn out to have been a mistake. But in my opinion so far it is too early to say..
Showing that Revolutionary Socialist have the best tactics for winning gains in here and now, through the equal and fraternal partnership, will in time create the milieu for Revolutionary Socialist party and revolution. And that is the ultimate aim of the SWP. Whether this is the best strategy will not be worked out through asinine bickering between leftist on an Internet chat room, only testing those ideas in the real world will tell in my humble opinion. (Marxist call this Praxis, the constant dialectical relationship between theory and practice from which Revolutionaries learn.)
Respect to you whether you agree with me are not. A very enjoyable discussion. ResistanceMP3
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
RMP3 having read your post I find myself more than a little baffled as to some of your remarks. You write as if replying to comments that I have made but I cannot recall any comments that might be relevant to many of your comments. For example you write that I discuss “why we cannot work with them” but I have not made any remarks that suggest that socialists should not or cannot work with Yaqoob or Wedgewood Benn. Not to put too fine a point on things you are attributing positions to me which you have no good reason to believe I hold.
On the contrary I agree with Tony Cliff when he wrote that the task of revolutionaries is to intervene in mass struggles and mass organisations. Naturally both you and I would prefer to carry out such work under our own revolutionary banner in the open as members of a Revolutionary Communist Party. However we both know that when revolutionaries are a tiny isolated minority interventions must often be informed by the method of the United Front which I suspect is what you are getting at with your comments about considering leaderships dialectically.
The trouble is that the United Front is not concerned with leaderships alone but principally with the mass base such misleaderships stand at the head of. It is for that reason that I have asked, largely in vain it seems, Mutley to indicate where the mass bases which Benn and Yaqoob presumably lead might be located. You see the United Front as a tactic presupposes that forces to one’s right actually have a mass base. A largely passive vote at elections and a slim layer of young Asian women are, with the best will in the world, not a mass base.
Now let me be clear I do not and have never been opposed to working with figures such as Benn or Yaqoob. Indeed I’m willing to make an alliance with the Devil himself if that would enable us to win from him some of his Satanic hordes. As long as those Satanic hordes are more than a handful of hangers on and ‘inspired’ university students. That it was principled to work with Benn, Yaqoob and even Galloway in the STWC I do not doubt for a moment. That the SWP rejected their then current alliance with the Socialist Alliance at the same time they entered into closer relations with Galloway and Yaqoob seems to me to be bad tactics which has sown ill feelings without making any positive gains but there you go.
You suggest that the SWP works with these figures in order “to ensure that their movement is to the left”. Well frankly as we both know the political evolution of an old man lacking mass support such as Wedgewood Benn is of no importance. That by the way is not me ‘dissing’ Benn but the simple plain and unadorned truth. Ditto Kitty Galloway with his Stalinoid political baggage. Perhaps the only one of these three figures Mutley and yourself has mentioned who might be influenced to the left is Salma Yaqoob but this is doubtful in my opinion. In any case she lacks a substantial base of activist supporters and the following she does have is not proletarian.
Now I accept that you may disagree with my comments above but as statements concerning facts they are unassailable. Either Benn and/or Yaqoob stand at the head of mass movements which share their politics or they do not. If they do not then it follows that the tactic of the United Front is not applicable and that the leadership of the SWP is making a bad error in building a populist political formation such as Respect with the latter. As we are now discussing the question of the application of the United Front tactic it seems sensible to ask what gains the previous application of this tactic, that is the Socialist Alliance, have brought the SWP? Given the questions raised by John Molyneux and others over the last couple of years the answer is that there were no gains only losses. Will the experience of Respect be any different? Given the record of your CC I would very much doubt it.
But the United Front tactic could be usefully and profitably applied by the SWP today. If the SWP were to abandon the fruitless task of building Respect and were to commit itself to building a new Mass Workers Party. To tell the truth commitment to such a strategic goal would not even mean breaking your alliance with Salma Yaqoob and her followers but would most probably appeal to the majority of young Asians who are themselves working class. The same is true of the aging fan base of Wedgewood Benn come to that. But such a goal, and I have no doubt that there are many differences of opinion as to how we can achieve such a goal, would involve genuine acceptance of differences between socialists.
Now to close I agree that many on the socialist left elevate differences on tactical questions to a point where any kind of cooperation becomes fraught with difficulties. For my part I find that kind of attitude as reprehensible as the artificial closing of debate by branding others as ‘wankers’ or the such like. In fact you resort to inventing positions that I “APEAR” to hold as when you claim that I am “pointing to your organisation as the one true shining path”. One might as well suggest that I belong to Sendero Luminoso this is so far from the truth. As for even hinting that I might, in some moment of lunacy I presume, describe the SWP as fascist I find this suggestion to be sheer idiocy. Nor do I abstain from involvement in genuine mass movements or united fronts for the record.
But I do dispute the rather silly claims of the SWP that organisations such as Respect, United Against Fascism, Globalise Resistance, etc are genuine united fronts in which “FRATERNAL discussion” and the common experience of struggle is the prime educator as opposed to the sectarian practice of standing on the sidelines carping. In fact I would suggest that the main ‘united front’ the SWP is currently involved in, that is Respect, is itself a deeply sectarian and opportunist adventure which you will one day regret precisely because it is not based on the centrality of the working class and our struggles.
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
The above is strange coming from a comrade who would seem to be a long time member of the SWP. Strange for the following reasons.
1/ Trotsky did not argue that the working class is split into tiny minorities of fascists, revolutionaries and a reformist majority. if he did please provide the citations. What is true is that any group of people will be polarised on various questions with more or less consistent minorities on both the right and left with a vacillating majority between them.
2/ Historically reformism was the idea that the working class could gradually by a process of reforms transform capitalism into its negation communism. Reformism does not, in this sense, refer to people who want reforms in specific areas. The sense in which socialists use this term make reference not only to reforms but to the goal and agency which are fundametal to reformism as an ideology.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I will come back to some of your other points later on, I would just like some clarity first.
What would you describe in January 2006 as being "mass struggles"? What would you say is the political "mass organisation" of the working-class in January 2006?
fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3.
What would you describe in January 2006 as being "mass struggles"? What would you say is the political "mass organisation" of the working-class in January 2006?
fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3.
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:I will come back to some of your other points later on, I would just like some clarity first.
What would you describe in January 2006 as being "mass struggles"? What would you say is the political "mass organisation" of the working-class in January 2006?
fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3.
I'm unaware of any current struggles involving masses of people at present proletarian or otherwise. Is it not the case that social struggles in general and trade union struggles specifically are at an historically low ebb?
That a lot of good work is done by various campaigns, unions and individuals should be taken as read i would hope. But none, as far as I'm aware involve masses of people other than as stage armies.
As regards the political mass organisation of the working class surely the point today is that this is exactly what the working class needs? That is to say the formation of its own political party? A new Mass Workers Party in short.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I should be walking away from the debate. NOT Because I'm suggesting you are a "wanker", or because I want to be antidemocratic. I should be walking away from the debate because of what I said above to kasheem, where I criticised my own comrades in the SWP for debating on here. It's like one of your own comrades, Bill, said, revolutionary socialists trying to recruit each other is like swapping deckchairs on the Titanic. Revolutionary Socialist trying to convince each other the other is wrong, when we both know full well that neither of us is going to change our mind, is even worse for it is like arguing about why you are not going to change chairs on the Titanic. but being the sad argumentative bastard that I am, with nothing better to do, I will indulge you.
I think the SWP has conceded that respect is not a authentic United front, I cannot remember the title they used but I think they have expressed it is some kind of variant of the United front. I think they would have to concede it for the reasons you point out, it is not truly a mass movement. But also as you point out there is NO formally organised political mass movement like old Labour, militant, and the various strands of the left formed in the 1970s. By 1992 as the SWP said, they could be proud of remaining virtually intact, but it was a hollow victory as majority of the left had become the least disorganised, if not disappeared. (I know there are all kinds of contradictions to what I'm saying, but I'm agreeing with post 72.) Like you we also feel there is a need for a "workers party", and that is what respect is, and attempt to create a party representing working-class people. I would have to concede, and I think people in the SWP today would concede, there is a degree of substitutionism going on. HOWEVER;
But you know and I know you will not convince me and the SWP by debating. Forget us, and do it! When the SWP walk away from the debate. When the SWP won't argue with the rest of the left. The SWP is not being sectarian, it's being pragmatic and practical.
Fraternal greetings comrade. ResistanceMP3
A couple of other points because I'm sad argumentative bastard.
So you're a bit baffled by my comments. Mutley's to I take it? And flimsier? We all seem to be questioning your ultraleft position. you say you ARE prepared to work with Tony Benn etc. Fair enough. I'm glad to hear it. It might be worth bearing in mind, that we all came to the same conclusion and perhaps there was a common denominator in that ' false ' assumption, the style in which you wrote your posts. ((And if you actually look back at my original post, I did allude the fact it was your style rather than your actual position when I talked about "the way you come across", rather than what you believe.))
Again you miss read my post;
I have a confession for you neprimerimye. Your comrade bill often comes to SWP public meetings. I don't think he comes to discuss and debate with the SWP, I think we are merely a foil to debate against with the aim of speaking to the non-SWP members who come to the public meeting. In responding to you I wasn't particularly having a go at you, I was having a go at the whole left, in order to speak to people like Kasheem. So don't take it personally mate
but being the sad argumentative bastard that I am, with nothing better to do, I will indulge you.I think the SWP has conceded that respect is not a authentic United front, I cannot remember the title they used but I think they have expressed it is some kind of variant of the United front. I think they would have to concede it for the reasons you point out, it is not truly a mass movement. But also as you point out there is NO formally organised political mass movement like old Labour, militant, and the various strands of the left formed in the 1970s. By 1992 as the SWP said, they could be proud of remaining virtually intact, but it was a hollow victory as majority of the left had become the least disorganised, if not disappeared. (I know there are all kinds of contradictions to what I'm saying, but I'm agreeing with post 72.) Like you we also feel there is a need for a "workers party", and that is what respect is, and attempt to create a party representing working-class people. I would have to concede, and I think people in the SWP today would concede, there is a degree of substitutionism going on. HOWEVER;
If i am resorting to invention, what is this then?neprimerimye said:
You accept that the people in respect could be won to a workers party, but you are not in there arguing for that with them very same people like sw is, are you? Your arguing YOUR modle of the "workers party", is the only way. WE rev socs setup the 'perfect compromise', and "they will come". And you know what? You might be right.neprimerimye said:
But you know and I know you will not convince me and the SWP by debating. Forget us, and do it! When the SWP walk away from the debate. When the SWP won't argue with the rest of the left. The SWP is not being sectarian, it's being pragmatic and practical. Fraternal greetings comrade. ResistanceMP3
A couple of other points because I'm sad argumentative bastard.
So you're a bit baffled by my comments. Mutley's to I take it? And flimsier? We all seem to be questioning your ultraleft position. you say you ARE prepared to work with Tony Benn etc. Fair enough. I'm glad to hear it. It might be worth bearing in mind, that we all came to the same conclusion and perhaps there was a common denominator in that ' false ' assumption, the style in which you wrote your posts. ((And if you actually look back at my original post, I did allude the fact it was your style rather than your actual position when I talked about "the way you come across", rather than what you believe.))
Again you miss read my post;
You didn't read this bit? "(I accept you may not call the SWP fascist, I'm just bending the stick, going to the extremist language used about the SWP to make the point)."neprimerimye said:
I have a confession for you neprimerimye. Your comrade bill often comes to SWP public meetings. I don't think he comes to discuss and debate with the SWP, I think we are merely a foil to debate against with the aim of speaking to the non-SWP members who come to the public meeting. In responding to you I wasn't particularly having a go at you, I was having a go at the whole left, in order to speak to people like Kasheem. So don't take it personally mate
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:I think the SWP has conceded that respect is not a authentic United front, I cannot remember the title they used but I think they have expressed it is some kind of variant of the United front. I think they would have to concede it for the reasons you point out, it is not truly a mass movement. But also as you point out there is NO formally organised political mass movement like old Labour, militant, and the various strands of the left formed in the 1970s. By 1992 as the SWP said, they could be proud of remaining virtually intact, but it was a hollow victory as majority of the left had become the least disorganised, if not disappeared. Like you we also feel there is a need for a "workers party", and that is what respect is, and attempt to create a party representing working-class people. I would have to concede, and I think people in the SWP today would concede, there is a degree of substitutionism going on.
If i am resorting to invention, what is this then?
You accept that the people in respect could be won to a workers party, but you are not in there arguing for that with them very same people like sw is, are you? Your arguing YOUR modle of the "workers party", is the only way. WE rev socs setup the 'perfect compromise', and "they will come". And you know what? You might be right.
A couple of other points because I'm sad argumentative bastard.
So you're a bit baffled by my comments. Mutley's to I take it? And flimsier? We all seem to be questioning your ultraleft position. you say you ARE prepared to work with Tony Benn etc. Fair enough. I'm glad to hear it. It might be worth bearing in mind, that we all came to the same conclusion and perhaps there was a common denominator in that ' false ' assumption, the style in which you wrote your posts.
I have a confession for you neprimerimye. Your comrade bill often comes to SWP public meetings. I don't think he comes to discuss and debate with the SWP, I think we are merely a foil to debate against with the aim of speaking to the non-SWP members who come to the public meeting. In responding to you I wasn't particularly having a go at you, I was having a go at the whole left, in order to speak to people like Kasheem. So don't take it personally mate
RMP3 my good friend you are confused. I have no comrade named Bill. I am not who you would appear to think I am. How about debating me not somebody you imagine I am?
Some points to round this off.
1/ The SWP has described Respect as a United Front sui generis. A UF of a special kind in good English. Which given that Respect from all avaibale reports has no substance is a United Front with Kitty and some elements of the MAB. In others words it is not in any real sense a UF at all.
2/ You describe Respect as a workers party. In which case I cannot but note that it lacks any substantial support within the organised workers movement and has a leadership which, for the most part, has few connections to the workers movement. In what sense then is it a workers party?
3/ You are mistaken if you believe that my suggestion that what is needed objectively is a new Mass Workers Party is my pointing to any kind of organisation in the here and now. I consider attempts to set up such a new Workers Party or to agiitate for such a body, as is the practice of both the SP and Workers Power, incorrect at the present moment.
4/ Again you refer to my politics as ultra left. As i suspect you do not understand this term i suggest you read the short Education for Socialists pamphlet that deals with it. Once you have done so i would be most curious to learn what aspect of my criticism of unrepresentative misleaders is 'ultra left'.
Finally my best wishes to your friend Bill whoever he is. And of course to yourself and fellow cat lovers everywhere.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
unlike many on the board I've never had a problem admitting my shortcomings failing and mistakes, I am after all unlike many on the board human. yes I had for some reason from something you had written assumed that you were a member of workers power, but considering the revelation that you are not does not effect what I am saying, and that any revolutionary left organisation you are in is likely to be of even less significance than the SWP,neprimerimye said:
your political allegiance still does not pique my interest.
so to sumup, you are a person who is criticising something from a position of having created nothing.
Make my day comerade, go and create that workers party, don't just talk about it.ResistanceMP3
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:unlike many on the board I've never had a problem admitting my shortcomings failing and mistakes, I am after all unlike many on the board human. yes I had for some reason from something you had written assumed that you were a member of workers power, but considering the revelation that you are not does not effect what I am saying, and that any revolutionary left organisation you are in is likely to be of even less significance than the SWP,
so to sumup, you are a person who is criticising something from a position of having created nothing. Make my day comerade, go and create that workers party, don't just talk about it.
ResistanceMP3
So despite my favourable references to Cliff and similar positive references to IS you presumed that I belong to Workers Power?
Although I do approve of your criteria for debate only those who have created something have the right to criticise. A good rule.
Given the drop in numbers of the SWP and its decreasing base within the working class i do feel that the same rule ought be applied to your leaderrship however.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
except for a brief aberration beginning in September 2003, I've rarely bothered to study the nuances of the various revolutionary sects. a fallibility that my membership of urban 75 has convinced me is an attribute.neprimerimye said:So despite my favourable references to Cliff and similar positive references to IS you presumed that I belong to Workers Power?
So are you going to enlighten me? Go on, I know you're dying to. :-D
I will take that as a compliment.
Oh. I see now. You were just lining me up for a cruel blow.
if you actually look at what I have written above, and in the SWP leadership thread, you might see that I have some agreement with you about the SWP national leadership/rank-and-file membership/JM ETC.
fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
neprimerimye said:
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
neprimerimye said:ResistanceMP3 said:Looks like this thread has died. So a few final points.
1/ Your suggestion to other SWP comrades that they desist from contributing to these boards is an attempt to close down debate. i cannot imagine what else it might be.
can you construct a political argument why any active revolutionary should contribute to the boards? I cannot.
2/ When I post on these boards I do the best i can to fairly reprewsent the other guy and take her views seriously. If others do not or resort to abuse that is not my practice. It is however the consistent practice of some SWP hacks such as Nwnm for example.
I could say the same. So what? If any members of the SWP resort to name calling and bickering with the revolutionary left it only kind of confirms what I'm saying above, that contributing to these boards is completely futile and has no political justification.(I would point out that I have seen members of the SWP attack members of the SWP on these boards for the pointless name-calling such as the commonly used "trotbot")
3/ Respect is a failed experiment.we will see comrade.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
In bickering?mattkidd12 said:
I honestly don't believe you can be serious about that.
fraternal greetings comrade. ResistanceMP3
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
the problem is that the Inter-left debates are 99% of the boards content. even when you discuss history, war, and other ideologies etc they are invariably turned into some form of name-calling squabble. And you actually say yourself you were referred to education OFF the boards.mattkidd12 said:
secondly, if you're already a revolutionary like yourself education can be stimulated from any activity, you don't need to come on the boards to be stimulated into Reading text from a broad spectrum. And if you're not a revolutionary, I think the board are more likely to confirm the common myth that the revolutionary left are just a bunch of squabbling idiots, knowledgeable maybe, but still sectarian.
Education is education fair enough, but the political rgument for a Marxist Leninist to enter on these boards would delineate how contributing to the boards contributed to the class struggle.I'm not saying people can't come on here, and have a bit of fun taking the piss out of each other, but I do actually agree with the SWP that contributing to such boards is politically a waste of time. There are much more productive things one could do.
And lastly, unless debate has some kind of fraternal honesty, and/or is used gear towards some kind of united action, debate between the hard left is at best philosophic wanking. I honestly feel that that it is far more constructive for the hard left to just agree to disagree, and prove whether they are right or wrong in the reality of class struggle. I personally would much rather SWP comrades spend their time debating with people to the right of the revolutionary left, the arguing about "why we're not going to swap deckchairs on the Titanic". This is something I was told from being in the SWP, but I have also had confirmed by contributing to the boards.
respect comrade. ResistanceMP3
I agree with most of what you say. I didn't mean debating with the SP over the pensions decision, for example. Obviously discussion with non-Marxists is more important than Marxists, I don't deny that. But firstly, you have to take into account I haven't been around as long as you () and my political knowledge isn't as vast as yours and others. So on things like Russian history, Iraq, the SWP, socialism, anarchism, variants of Marxism, working class struggle etc etc...I have learnt a great deal on here. You may well say that is not important, but I don't think joining a party means you have acquired all the sufficient knowledge you need - I like to keep reading, confirming certain positions etc. There were positions I held before coming on these boards which I have now, thanks to an increase in knowledge about that subject, changed my mind on. I think that's a good thing.
) and my political knowledge isn't as vast as yours and others. So on things like Russian history, Iraq, the SWP, socialism, anarchism, variants of Marxism, working class struggle etc etc...I have learnt a great deal on here. You may well say that is not important, but I don't think joining a party means you have acquired all the sufficient knowledge you need - I like to keep reading, confirming certain positions etc. There were positions I held before coming on these boards which I have now, thanks to an increase in knowledge about that subject, changed my mind on. I think that's a good thing.neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
Just as I thought the thread dead! OK i think you deserve an answer and I mean that most sincerely folks.
1/ I can construct several arguments why it is useful for revolutionary socialists to contribute to these boards! But I'll only make one right now as time is pressing. But please bear in mind that under no circumstancs do I consider discussion on these boards or other lists as important as participation in common struggles.
It is my opinion that as discussion here is between individuals from various groups, or no group at all, and from various parts of the country that it serves to allow us to develop a broader understanding of what and how comrades are thinking. It serves to allow an exchange of opinion uncontrained by the constraints of every day political work.
All of which presuposes that others are as willing to discuss without bickering and gross sectarian abuse. It also presupposes that comrades have enough patience to conduct discussion that is not simply aimed at winning this vote or recruiting that individual but is open ended and appears to be futile lacking any resolution. In fact I suspect that discussion here and elsewhere do have consequences and do serve to remove illusions some hold dear. Perhaps that, not the lack of resolution and petty bickering, is what some object to?
In short I'm arguing that these boards can play an educative and informative role as they balance the partial pictures presented in the regular socialist press. I'm arguing that isolated comrades who might otherwise only her one side of an argument can gain greater insights by discovering the views of other socialists. And by doing so improve their own ability to win over fellow activists on the ground by being better prepared to address their concerns and arguments.
2/ When posters resort to name calling it tells us that they as individuals are lacking on good manners. It may tell us more. For example that they are unable to debate without resort to abuse. It may even tell us that the group the individual belongs to has an abusive and undemocratic internal culture. Although it is patchy that is certainly true of some, not all, SWP contributors to these boards. And yes some people are as sectarian and abusive towards the SWP.
best
Mike
neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
mutley said:
For what its worth on this thread you got "tetchy and abusive"
(a) Before anyone else
(b) I find your refering to Nwnm as both a "sanctimonious sarcastic twat" rather offensive although I suppose he is technically a "celtic comrade".
No you should not rise to it. Especially as your not very good at it whatever it is...
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Mike, please point to anyone who is bent over further backwards than myself to try and have the kind of bebate you've outlined. maybe not now, but two years ago when I first came on here. and even the where you do get decent discussion, the Poland thread hasn't been too bad, it does seem all rather pointless. As I told you in the other thread, I actually got on the phone to a member of workers Power. We had an excellently fraternal discussion on the issue. And where did he get us? We had to agree to disagree.neprimerimye said:Just as I thought the thread dead! OK i think you deserve an answer and I mean that most sincerely folks.
1/ I can construct several arguments why it is useful for revolutionary socialists to contribute to these boards! But I'll only make one right now as time is pressing. But please bear in mind that under no circumstancs do I consider discussion on these boards or other lists as important as participation in common struggles.
It is my opinion that as discussion here is between individuals from various groups, or no group at all, and from various parts of the country that it serves to allow us to develop a broader understanding of what and how comrades are thinking. It serves to allow an exchange of opinion uncontrained by the constraints of every day political work.
All of which presuposes that others are as willing to discuss without bickering and gross sectarian abuse. It also presupposes that comrades have enough patience to conduct discussion that is not simply aimed at winning this vote or recruiting that individual but is open ended and appears to be futile lacking any resolution. In fact I suspect that discussion here and elsewhere do have consequences and do serve to remove illusions some hold dear. Perhaps that, not the lack of resolution and petty bickering, is what some object to?
In short I'm arguing that these boards can play an educative and informative role as they balance the partial pictures presented in the regular socialist press. I'm arguing that isolated comrades who might otherwise only her one side of an argument can gain greater insights by discovering the views of other socialists. And by doing so improve their own ability to win over fellow activists on the ground by being better prepared to address their concerns and arguments.
2/ When posters resort to name calling it tells us that they as individuals are lacking on good manners. It may tell us more. For example that they are unable to debate without resort to abuse. It may even tell us that the group the individual belongs to has an abusive and undemocratic internal culture. Although it is patchy that is certainly true of some, not all, SWP contributors to these boards. And yes some people are as sectarian and abusive towards the SWP.
best
Mike
"And yes some people are as sectarian and abusive towards the SWP. " Oh come on Mike if you are going to be honest. "trotbots". "fascist". "State run".a lot of the stuff that passes off as debate on this forum should be in the conspiracy theories Forum.
at the end of the day the people who are important are the people who are not in the revolutionary left. When they were asked in our poll on this forum whether they thought this place was a good or a bad advert for the left, out of those who wished to respond to those two questions, the majority answered "a bad advert".
Fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3
PS. Sorry it has took me so long to respond.
PPS. The poll was in actual fact censored to add a third option which had nothing to do with the topic I raised, imo.
