SWP Expel leading members in Respect

[emanymton]

Julie is actually quite nice just in her own somewhat unique way. She was on the CC when I was a member and was by far the most likable one I ever had contact with. Dave Hayes (whatever happened to him is he still on the CC?) came across ok but I never had any direct contact with him. Callinicos is by far the grumpiest.

Back on topic, I heard that Kevin Ovenden had been sent to work for Galloway to keep an eye on him after his BB adventure. That turned out well.
There is some speculation about the SWP splitting from Respect I think it is really hard to predict what will happen as the situation is still very fluid and there are obviously still quite a few cards left to be played so I doubt anyone has any plans yet. But here is my prediction based on the current situation I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow of course.

The SWP cannot just up and leave Respect they have invested far too much into it leaving now would tear them apart (although given what has just happened it seems the Central committee is pretty stupid and/or even more detached from reality than I thought previously) more likely there will be a gradual lessening of the emphasis on Respect. It will get less coverage than it used to the push will be towards more SWP or STWC meetings than Respect ones. I also expect there to be more of an educational push within the SWP. Some people will no doubt be of the view that the level of Marxist education in the SWP has always been crap but I feel that compared to when I joined 9 (shit 9!!) years ago the importance of education has dropped off considerably and what education there is often seems to be (rather understandably) focused on Imperialism and the middle east. This is part of the reason why it is hard for the SWP to simple leave Respect many of its new members are really just the left wing on the anti-war movement not ‘real’ trots and there is a danger that the party could not hold on to them without ‘hardening’ them up a bit first. All this will be setting the stage for the party’s eventual complete withdrawal in a few years time as without the full backing of the SWP Respect is unlikely too much of a force by then. Of course, if Respect does grow legs of its own the situation will become more complex for the SWP leadership.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Class struggle is the necessary antagonism between those who work for wages and those who own and control the means of production. Happens every working moment of every working day.

This is of course true. But I don't think you'd deny that class struggle goes through peaks and troughs, it's not just one even line. And you're right that even outside times of crisis there can be massive amounts of class struggle (look at the 1960s) but the point is that the economy is a very important factor. And we're hardly in times of mass class struggle - strike figures, for instance, are at an historic low.

 

[mk12]

But his point was: "it happens every working moment of every working day."

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yeah true, but that's kinda stating the obvious.

I thought it was in relation to talking about how economics effects class struggle, if not, then fair enough.

 

[mk12]

I just thought he/she had already answered your question:

But I don't think you'd deny that class struggle goes through peaks and troughs, it's not just one even line. And you're right that even outside times of crisis there can be massive amounts of class struggle (look at the 1960s) but the point is that the economy is a very important factor. And we're hardly in times of mass class struggle - strike figures, for instance, are at an historic low.

"the class-struggle is not something that erupts from time to time, when capitalism is going through one of it's periodic slumps, but rather it is part and parcel of everyday life for a member of the working-class under capitalism."

 

[cockneyrebel]

Not really. He is saying that class struggle happens every moment of every day. I'm saying, yeah it does (although saying that is stating the obvious) but it goes through peaks and troughs i.e. sometimes is more intense than others.

Unless you think it's one unending line of constant struggle that neither gets more intense or lessens off. But if someone thinks that, to be blunt, they'd have to be on another planet.

 

[mk12]

The class struggle certainly manifests itself in different ways at different times for different reasons.

 

[emanymton]

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight

Nuff said

 

[cockneyrebel]

The class struggle certainly manifests itself in different ways at different times for different reasons.

You should do a philisophical quotes book

 

[Divisive Cotton]

There is some speculation about the SWP splitting from Respect I think it is really hard to predict what will happen as the situation is still very fluid and there are obviously still quite a few cards left to be played so I doubt anyone has any plans yet.

It's the same old story - if they can't control it, they will destory it. So Respect will hit the ground before the SWP are prepared to walk away from it. The SWP won't just up and leave.

 

[mk12]

You should do a philisophical quotes book

 

[cockneyrebel]

carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight

Well that's exactly the point. No-one is saying the oppression isn't constant and for that matter the resistance as well. But the "now hidden, now open" bit is reflecting, I think anyway, what I'm saying about peaks and troughs of class struggle.

For instance strikes are, in my view, a crucial part of class struggle. In the 1970s a 10 million work days a year were lost to strike action. In 2005 it was 150,000.

 

[mk12]

Yep - there's many reasons why it's lower these days. But resistance continues, even in tiny ways. Remember, the longest journey begins with the first step.

 

[emanymton]

Cockney, I agree with you entirely, I just happen to think Uncle Karl said it first and said it better. No offense

 

[cockneyrebel]

Cockney, I agree with you entirely, I just happen to think Uncle Karl said it first and said it better. No offense

No offense taken. I often talk bollox, and I know it

Yep - there's many reasons why it's lower these days. But resistance continues, even in tiny ways. Remember, the longest journey begins with the first step.

I'm noting these beauties down. I reckon in a few years you could have people waving mk12's little red book in the air at demos.

I've often heard something about little acorns when people mentioned you but thought that might be a bit personal

 

[audiotech]

Just by way of a bit of education for those whose knowledge of socialism is confined to what they've been told by the leaders of left-wing, pro-capitalist parties, the class-struggle is not something that erupts from time to time, when capitalism is going through one of it's periodic slumps, but rather it is part and parcel of everyday life for a member of the working-class under capitalism. The SWP's notion of what constitutes class struggle is nothing less than a pile of romanticist hogwash where a 'revolutionary elite' sends hapless dupes to die on the barricades.

Class struggle is the necessary antagonism between those who work for wages and those who own and control the means of production. Happens every working moment of every working day.

Hilariously enough, I've heard members of the SWP upbraid those who have an accurate analysis of capitalism for not getting involved in the class struggle, when for the SWP the class struggle is just an outmoded desire for pointless and impotent violence against the state.

Somebody recently referred to the SWP as 'wankers'. Hear hear!

Grow up, or durutti will pull you up.

The antagonisms that develop involves forces that can favour, or hinder the class struggle. Nothing romanticised about that. Lenin would scoff at the notion.

As for 'pointless and impotent violence against the state'? I thought that was normally the realm of nihilists with an anarchist bent?

 

[fanciful]

Just to comment on the options for the SWP and Respect its a bit late to say they can't just up and leave. What else are they going to do?!
it looks like they'll lose their majority on the NC, in which case they've lost their organisational control of the party. It's quite possible they could lose at the national conference in November. But even if they win, the GG and co can just up and leave.
I don't think it acutally matters much who wins, either way they can't stay with each other.
Will it be bloody for the SWP? Absolutely. Their base is very weak, the new ones are hardly socialists even in my experience, they joined Respect student society, I'd say it was iffy if the SWP will take many of them with them, particularly now that they're split at the national level.
It'll have big ramifications for whatever's left as well, as its clearly Rees baby and its been a disaster. But its not like they can turn to any other really vibrant campaigns as an alternative either.
It's not like the 1970s. Either way the options are really poor for the leadership.

 

[Zeppo]

Considering the months of haggling and the end being not the death of Respect but a useful way forward (as per the latest from the Respect National Council), I find the behaviour of the SWP bizarre.

No general election, so time to organise and make broader links with others stabilise and move forward. Not the time to throw all your toys out of the pram.

These expulsions say more about getting more control in the SWP than it does about the way forward for Respect.

Yes the CPGB will be creaming themselves but they have always wanted to destroy the Respect project.

You can not make a good omelette without breaking eggs - Respect well may be better out of this.

 

[chilango]

Nevermind the SWP...what will happen to Respect?

Will the absence of the SWps allow it the freedom to become some kinda broad based left populist movement?

will it totally become an Islamophile communitarian party?

or will it dissappear to Galloway's portuguse holiday home come next election?

 

[butchersapron]

It'll sell it's arse to labour or lib-dems in a few years.

 

[chilango]

How so? (and for how much!)

 

[butchersapron]

A few council seats and favourable contract allocation.

 

[chilango]

ain't that (or absence of) why half of em left in the 1st place?

 

[butchersapron]

Why they left the lib-dems and labour? Yep. Bingo!

 

[chilango]

Who'd have thunk it?

 

[GuruYoghourt]

Grow up, or durutti will pull you up.

The antagonisms that develop involves forces that can favour, or hinder the class struggle. Nothing romanticised about that. Lenin would scoff at the notion.

As for 'pointless and impotent violence against the state'? I thought that was normally the realm of nihilists with an anarchist bent?

Lenin scoffed at the notion of workers being able to understand the case for socialism as well, which was but one example of the contempt in which he held members of the working-class.

Durutti? Who the hell is Durutti, then? He's going to pull me up for attacking a bunch of confused, elitist, vanguardist, Leninist sheep? You can feel me quaking, can't you?

Look. Socialism can only come about when we have a majority of people who understand the case for socialism and consciously opt for it. You can't force socialism on people, and this idea that some cataclysmic eruption of the class struggle will suddenly make otherwise apolitical workers wake up and follow the revolutionary elite is a)nonsensical, and b) dangerous.

It's nonsensical because people, historically, just don't respond that way, and this messianic socialism is mythological in the extreme, and it's dangerous because, as we've seen, when political power is seized that way there's a lot of bloodshed and repression needed which leads to so-called revolutionaries becoming monsters.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I think you'll find it was firstly Marx who considered certain sections of society (namely the peasantry) unable to comprehend the ideas of Socialism -but then again, for a supposedly 'Marxist' organisation you SpeeGees do hilariously fail to understand any of what he says.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I think you'll find it was firstly Marx who considered certain sections of society (namely the peasantry) unable to comprehend the ideas of Socialism -but then again, for a supposedly 'Marxist' organisation you SpeeGees do hilariously fail to understand any of what he says.

Is this the first post by an SWP member on this thread?

Would you like to provide a comment on the main topic? A "Supposedly 'Marxist' organisation" does not hide from others the fact that it has expelled members.

 

[Das Uberdog]

All I'm willing to say at this point is that I completely disagree with the leadership in this dispute - but that is only from what I've seen so far.

 

[GuruYoghourt]

I think you'll find it was firstly Marx who considered certain sections of society (namely the peasantry) unable to comprehend the ideas of Socialism -but then again, for a supposedly 'Marxist' organisation you SpeeGees do hilariously fail to understand any of what he says.

It's abundantly clear from what you've written that it is, in fact, you that has failed to grasp what Marx said on this subject, and that your incomprehension also extends to what Lenin said. "Capitalism", said Marx, "creates its own gravediggers." By which he meant the working-class. What he's saying is that the conditions that workers experience under capitalism are what create socialists. Why would the peasantry, who Marx suggested needed to liberated from 'the idiocy of rural life', have an interest in socialism?

Now, Lenin makes it very clear, and I think it was in 'State and Revolution', that he thinks the working-class, (which, incidentally, constituted a very small percentage of the population in Russia in 1917, a fact which immediately precludes the possibility of socialist revolution) cannot comprehend the case for socialism. He argues that workers are only capable of achieving trade-union consciousness, and that if you want workers to understand socialism then you will wait '500 years.'

Now that's a direct contradiction of Marx's position, which is that 'the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.'

You see, and this is the source of your confusion, Marx's ideas are fundamentally at odds with Lenin's. The SWP is a Leninist outfit, and logically, cannot be Marxist as well. Unless you think that being a christian atheist is a viable position to adopt. Which, come to think of it, since you're defending the SWP here, you probably do.