chilango
Ha! Ha! Armageddon
Cheers RMP3. I'll get back to this when I have some time...
where we [respect] stand today, it’s down to George Galloway and his leadership.
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
Cheers RMP3. I'll get back to this when I have some time...
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Originally Posted by ResistanceMP3 View Post
I think the bust up with Galloway, is actually a side issue to the material basis upon which this conflict was predicated.
I think dennisr could possibly be right.
What I like doing is talking about something I'm not absolutely sure about. In the process of putting down your ideas, and listening to people's responses, you sometimes get some clarity on that upon which you are confused.
I am trying to make sense of the split, and as I said in post three, I think it is a bit more complicated than just being the sws fault. I think mistakes were made on every side, but I don't think the mistakes on either side warranted the split. ONE of the real reasons the split has took place, is because Alan THORNET [1] and others have a different view, in fact several different views, of how respect should organise to the Socialist worker model. they started the kind of inward looking debate and discussion Socialist worker had tried to avoid, rightly or wrongly, for several years. When socialist worker predictably continued to argue about how this type of "bunfighting" was inappropriate, the Galloway faction refused to relent. I think this would have been swallowed, but then SW made a snap decision that this was part of an attempt to change the power relations if not expel SW, so the model for respect could be exchanged. The Galloway faction seemed to organise quite quickly and come to a conclusion quite quickly the only option was to split. the speed with which they moved to believe it had been discussed earlier that they would either emasculate Socialist worker in the alliance, or get rid of them. When Socialist worker said that they would not walk away, the Galloway faction depending on your perspective walked away from the project, or effectively kicked SW out of the project. To me this is not about dodgy cheques, backroom deals, hurt feelings etc, this is a political difference about how respect should organise. I think the rest is a pretext. There may be some genuine grievances, but that people want to pursue a different model for the alliance is the real intention.
Now though I believe those were the real intentions of the Galloway faction, they may not be the real basis. In short the real basis is the lack of success. In this thread http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=241576 I tried to initiate a discussion about what I'm leaning towards, at the moment, are the real reasons upon which the conflict was predicated. If you look in that thread I do say these ideas could be completely wrong, that's why I wanted to discuss them. Looking at that thread again, perhaps I should have said "superstructural basis", rather than "material basis", in my comment above, sorry. It is that any clearer?
I think the bust up with Galloway, is actually a side issue to the material basis upon which this conflict was predicated.
my guess would be "fuck all, that makes any sense"
I think dennisr could possibly be right.
What I like doing is talking about something I'm not absolutely sure about. In the process of putting down your ideas, and listening to people's responses, you sometimes get some clarity on that upon which you are confused.
I am trying to make sense of the split, and as I said in post three, I think it is a bit more complicated than just being the sws fault. I think mistakes were made on every side, but I don't think the mistakes on either side warranted the split. ONE of the real reasons the split has took place, is because Alan THORNET [1] and others have a different view, in fact several different views, of how respect should organise to the Socialist worker model. they started the kind of inward looking debate and discussion Socialist worker had tried to avoid, rightly or wrongly, for several years. When socialist worker predictably continued to argue about how this type of "bunfighting" was inappropriate, the Galloway faction refused to relent. I think this would have been swallowed, but then SW made a snap decision that this was part of an attempt to change the power relations if not expel SW, so the model for respect could be exchanged. The Galloway faction seemed to organise quite quickly and come to a conclusion quite quickly the only option was to split. the speed with which they moved to believe it had been discussed earlier that they would either emasculate Socialist worker in the alliance, or get rid of them. When Socialist worker said that they would not walk away, the Galloway faction depending on your perspective walked away from the project, or effectively kicked SW out of the project. To me this is not about dodgy cheques, backroom deals, hurt feelings etc, this is a political difference about how respect should organise. I think the rest is a pretext. There may be some genuine grievances, but that people want to pursue a different model for the alliance is the real intention.
Now though I believe those were the real intentions of the Galloway faction, they may not be the real basis. In short the real basis is the lack of success. In this thread http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=241576 I tried to initiate a discussion about what I'm leaning towards, at the moment, are the real reasons upon which the conflict was predicated. If you look in that thread I do say these ideas could be completely wrong, that's why I wanted to discuss them. Looking at that thread again, perhaps I should have said "superstructural basis", rather than "material basis", in my comment above, sorry. It is that any clearer?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Paranoia? simple, read post 24.maybe I should as well
having said that - you are still assuming i am opposed to democratic centralism? - from what i can tell, from what you say above.
i don't - i am opposed to the application of the SWPs version of it in practice
you defend - or explain your accusations of "paranioa" etc and THEN i'll be happy to expand on my views further. it takes two to have a debate
on the rest, simple re-read your post in this context, at the most generous estimation there is what, 20,000 revolutionaries in the UK? do you think when the 2 million people decided to march against the war they gave a flying fuck about what has happened in the minutiae of left-wing politics in the last 20 years? it is this sense of control freakery, that if the left could just spend two years talking to draw up this nice piece of constitution, the masses would come running. And would be quite prepared to let the organisation be paralysed by interminable bunfighting, caused by a constitution, that gives a party with 12 men and a dog the same rights as the 2 million independents. I think the real basis is that you have lived for 20 years in environment where politics is a minority sport, unfortunately. In that environment a pitifully small, pitifully irrelevant organisation to the 60 million people in this country, through its democratic centralism can outvote, outmanoeuvre, out produce isn't the fault of the SWP. If the politics of the revolutionary left so piss poor they cannot circumnavigate such a small organisation, how were they going to overthrow capitalism?
to be honest mate, don't bother responding, you're not interested in educating me you are interested in telling me how superior your intellect is. no need, I accept you are cleverer than me.
dennisr
the acceptable face
But am I going on about the "minutie of left-wing politics in the last 20 years" Resist?
I leave that sort of thing to Fisher - is clearly his lifeblood.
I responded to your comments about the role of the SWP in (in what it sees as...) its united front work. Yes, I agree the petty politics of small organisations on the left is largely irrelevant.
But it is not irrelevant when genuine attempts have been made by some of those left organisations that have connected with wider movements of people - Liverpool, the Poll Tax, in trade union work and (to a lesser extent I would agree...) in the various attempts to build a new independent voice for working people in the wake of the collapse of the reformist labor party. Then the effects of other small groups in sometimes de-railing that movement (and where they remained irrelevant I still think I have the right to point out what their actual position was when their members a decade later try to re-write the role they played).
The respect project is another fuck up - the result of not just a 'mistake' on the part of the SWP or an example of the sectarianism and therefore failure of the rest of the left (as i gather this is what you mean by 'paranioa' judging from the footnote you pointed me too in post 24). It is a result of the entire political approach of the SWP - not using the method of building a genuine 'united front' but of a completely opportunist approach towards 'alliances' and elections.
This is not new - throughout the largely irrelevant history of the SWP they have made different mistakes on the basis of the same politics - from ultra left slogannering in liverpool while tens of thousands faced a genuine struggle, standing aside in the poll tax - misunderstanding the nature of the movement, sectarianism in trade union work - now replaced by desperate alliances with people you should be exposing for what hey really represent (luckily without any real influence except occasionaly at local levels where I have watched as the utterly mistaken actions of some of your comrades has resulted in the defeat of strikes and moods and some of the best trade unionists being sacked).
Was the ANL (mark one) an exception for the SWP in terms of united front work? - sadly no, even that was a weird version of a genuine united front - vicers against the nazis alongside what became RA - a confused movement. The one other forey into mass work (as opposed to talk about mass work) by the SWP resulting in its own organisation having splits - as with respect. The SWP played a creditble role but still showed the limits of its politics - the growth of the NF was actually defeated by the strike wave and a mass workers movement of which the was ANL a sideline (though i would be the first to say an important sideline)
My politics and interests are about HOW 'revolutionary' politics can influence and play an effective role in the wider working class movement. It is a world apart from the minutie of the waltham forest ward byelection irrelevance. My politics comes from the experience of mass movements - the miners strike, the liverpool dispute, the poll tax. That's where your politics should come from if your leadership did not have to dishonestly re-write history rather than admit mistakes and learn from them.
Do you honestly believe this is some sort of intellectual game for me??? Or is that simply a way to avoid the very awkward questions I am asking of your organisation??
The irony that you are now saying I am just trying to act 'clever' - given my background and my limited but bitter experience of arrogant student lefty types (very much from the outside) is not lost on me.
I am sorry if you do not like the harsh manner in which I am forcing you to ask questions about the nature of your organisation. I have held back for 20+ years and tried again and again to 'work with' people like you despite the better judgement of people around me who had already seen through your organisation (and lets try and seperate the organisation from its members - I am still willing to work with decent individuals regardless of their politics).
The brutal truth - The SWP leadership has misled generation after generation of genuine folk who wanted to fight with its ultra-left posturing. It has achieved very little of its stated aims of taking working people beyond their present understanding of the world and what it is possible to achieve within it, of building on the experiences working people have to go through. The SWP has held back necessary movements where it has played any significant role (luckily few and far between...) - as we can see with the potential of respect and what actually happened. And it only seems to have created a generation of ex-swp members who hate the SWP (but tar the entire left with the same brush) with a vengance bordering on the somewhat hysterical. I mean - the Militant fought real battles - why are we not hated in the same way? Why does the opposition to our politics come from the personalisation of a couple of individuals - Derek Hatton or Tommy Sheridan - rather than the rejection of revolutionary politics in its entirety.
And finally:
This is frankly a completely inadequate explaination and fluff - my suggestion, if you want to talk about a united front tactic from a trotskyist point of view is to go back and read what it means. After all the SWP, bookmarks - ironically - did a re-print of the book.
You cannot begin to explain the social basis for the success or failure of the various alliances in recent history on the basis of individual failings and 'lack of trust'. As I pointed out with my first post - any 'lack of trust' was a consequence of the political approach of organisations within those alliances - and the SWP is squarely in the frame as a guilty party. There is a reason why I explained the need for certain organiation orms within such an alliance - it was not' to keep the SWP in check', it was not 'so the SP could dominate' - it was so that the members of this organisation learnt from the experience of working together, so that a real unity of purpose was built up in practice. In come the SWP - two years late - and blunderingly blow the whole setup apart becsue they put the interests of their own organisation head of the ovrall interests the rest of us had agreed upon - which were more important than that of our respective seperate organisations. its called sectarianism.
He wasn't 'paraded'. I was at the meeting when he made that comment. He was one of a large number of people who spoke from the floor articulating various points of view. No-one had sympathy for that particular ott comment, and he wasn't clapped.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Thats a sound approach - and something I admire in your posts on urban. i often do the same and clarify my own thoughts through the process of discussion
Unfortunatly it means I am presently having to point out some uncomfortable home truths as I see them about your organisation. I am not happy doing this - it makes me look like a bit of a sectarian in my dislike of your organisations politics because here is only space to talk about the bad side. it looks biast.
I have a couple of mates whom despite lapsing into inactivity have remained loyal to the swappies politics (both ex-members). We get on well until i distance myself from the swp when they pull the 'we are very similar in our politics really' arguement - usually when there is some politics being talked with other folk. I don't 'do' 'unity' for the sake of it
I suppose they see me as attacking them personally, questioning our friendship. it makes dealing with the dirty political laundry being aired quite difficult
dennisr
the acceptable face
I probably won't stop Fisher repeating this gem as a 'fact' for the next 20 years though
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
6546311
I didn't say read the footnote, I said read the post. That is in particular the paragraph the footnote refers to. The point I'm trying to make is, I wasn't just having a go at you for the paranoia. ok
And read post 32, and specifically saying the split isn't just about mistakes, and in the other thread and I indicate, might have a superstructural basis.
the second point is, you are not forcing me to question SW, I was already doing that, have already made several points critical. You seem to have such tunnel vision, you can even recognize that. Have quite a few more criticisms, but you never really seem to get chance to develop them on this website, without somebody wanting to jump in and prescribe/impose what my criticisms should be.
Your method of debate isn't harsh, it's zealotry, religious, imposing, arrogant but most of all it's lacking in something many on the left/right/Centre display, a scientific recognition that it is impossible to be 100% right all the time. People have to be allowed to have a different point of view. You have to acknowledge that possibility, you don't personally believe it, but there may be a possibility you are wrong. I always do that, not because I want to be loved by people, but because it is fact. Why do you think balders praises me? It's not because he agrees with me, it is because he can tell I am not trying to listen to what he is saying, and then at the end of the day I accept his motivations are decent and genuine.
And no you cannot separate the organisation from the members. Pretending that the membership are too stupid, so gullible they have been missled generation after generation by the SW leadership, is just a sorry pathetic excuse for a political analysis. It is just so arrogant, ignorant, and has exactly the opposite effect to that which you wish to achieve (forcing me to question SW).
And I am virtually an ex-member. Know loads of ex-members. My experience is not the same as yours, but even where they are hostile to SW the ones I know, they are usually even more hostile to other Revolutionary groups. If you think SW is the only group capable of putting people off Revolutionary politics, your frankly a dreamer. you honestly believe Monty Python's iconic Revolutionarie sketch, was based on SW?
sorry, but in the way you approach things just brings out the worst in me. I did try to lower the temperature in my initial response to you, ignoring your first condescending post, but I don't think I can really take anything you say seriously any more, even though I do believe you have some valid criticisms.
PS. Just out of interest to Fisher and other people in this thread, every member of SW I have spoken to has said SW would still work with all the members and organisations within respect renewal, even though the reciprocal is not true.
I didn't say read the footnote, I said read the post. That is in particular the paragraph the footnote refers to. The point I'm trying to make is, I wasn't just having a go at you for the paranoia. okAnd read post 32, and specifically saying the split isn't just about mistakes, and in the other thread and I indicate, might have a superstructural basis.
the second point is, you are not forcing me to question SW, I was already doing that, have already made several points critical. You seem to have such tunnel vision, you can even recognize that. Have quite a few more criticisms, but you never really seem to get chance to develop them on this website, without somebody wanting to jump in and prescribe/impose what my criticisms should be.
Your method of debate isn't harsh, it's zealotry, religious, imposing, arrogant but most of all it's lacking in something many on the left/right/Centre display, a scientific recognition that it is impossible to be 100% right all the time. People have to be allowed to have a different point of view. You have to acknowledge that possibility, you don't personally believe it, but there may be a possibility you are wrong. I always do that, not because I want to be loved by people, but because it is fact. Why do you think balders praises me? It's not because he agrees with me, it is because he can tell I am not trying to listen to what he is saying, and then at the end of the day I accept his motivations are decent and genuine.
And no you cannot separate the organisation from the members. Pretending that the membership are too stupid, so gullible they have been missled generation after generation by the SW leadership, is just a sorry pathetic excuse for a political analysis. It is just so arrogant, ignorant, and has exactly the opposite effect to that which you wish to achieve (forcing
me to question SW).And I am virtually an ex-member. Know loads of ex-members. My experience is not the same as yours, but even where they are hostile to SW the ones I know, they are usually even more hostile to other Revolutionary groups. If you think SW is the only group capable of putting people off Revolutionary politics, your frankly a dreamer. you honestly believe Monty Python's iconic Revolutionarie sketch, was based on SW?
sorry, but in the way you approach things just brings out the worst in me. I did try to lower the temperature in my initial response to you, ignoring your first condescending post, but I don't think I can really take anything you say seriously any more, even though I do believe you have some valid criticisms.
PS. Just out of interest to Fisher and other people in this thread, every member of SW I have spoken to has said SW would still work with all the members and organisations within respect renewal, even though the reciprocal is not true.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Thats a sound approach - and something I admire in your posts on urban. i often do the same and clarify my own thoughts through the process of discussion
Unfortunatly it means I am presently having to point out some uncomfortable home truths as I see them about your organisation. I am not happy doing this - it makes me look like a bit of a sectarian in my dislike of your organisations politics because here is only space to talk about the bad side. it looks biast.
I have a couple of mates whom despite lapsing into inactivity have remained loyal to the swappies politics (both ex-members). We get on well until i distance myself from the swp when they pull the 'we are very similar in our politics really' arguement - usually when there is some politics being talked with other folk. I don't 'do' 'unity' for the sake of it
I suppose they see me as attacking them personally, questioning our friendship. it makes dealing with the dirty political laundry being aired quite difficult
ok. time out. at the moment we're only creating heat, and very little light.
Whilst I appreciate you are not attempting a setarian attack on us swp'rs, I think this paragraph deserves a highlighting, as it is a complete re-writing of history; which is something you are attempting to take us to task for. Your analogy of the ANL being about 'vicars against the nazis' is disengenuous, when you consider that the impetous for setting up the anti nazi league was the battle of Lewisham in 1977. The Vicars (along with the CP) are the ones you can see in this footage here marching away from the Nazi's, whilst the people who set up the ANL are the ones seen fighting with the police and the NF -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/13/newsid_2534000/2534035.stm
Its nice to know in retrospect that our organisation played a 'creditable' role in building this campaign. Unfortunately, your comrades attitudes at the time were it was 'outside the movement' (i.e. the Labour Party), so they boycotted membership.Your point about the unions is a bit odd - the ANL had a massive presence in the unions. The militancy of the campaign (preventing demonstrations and meetings of the fascists) did upset some early supporters such as Brian Clough, but those tactics are what led to the decline and eventual collapse of the NF. You don't have to take our word for it here's NF leader Martin Webster, "The sheer presence of the ANL had made it impossible to get NF members on the streets, had dashed recruitment and cut away at their vote." Some sideline. The idea that the NF were defeated by 'the strike wave and a mass workers movement' would need a bit of clarification here. Would these be the ones called by the ANL against racist attacks, or are you alluding to the winter of discontent; a period when most of them went down to defeat to a labour government, and where dissillusion with callaghan meant things veered to the right and Thatcher got elected? There are other things I could say, but I would suggest you look at some of the links below to read up on the period. Particularly the one on working class anti fascism.
https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12783
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=5068
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=7584
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/anl.html
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/working.html
dennisr
the acceptable face
Re the lewisham battle - i think most participants would agree - the bloc (and organised as such) that stood against the police were the Militants of the LPYS - as previously, they had initiated and led the first anti-fascist march against the NF of the time in bradford. of course everyone chucked stuff and fought police attacks - but i mean as an organised bloc who managed to block the route of the march)
The SWP of the time saw this opportunity and had the wherewithall to build the ANL as a result. By the way, the Militants were members of the ANL (mark 1). Then as now they critisised the confused nature of the ANL, while recognising its role (and being among those pushing for a clear socialist trade union base) - I didn't just talk about vicers but, on the other side the likes of what became Red Action - it was confused.
As I said above - the Militants were part of the ANL (mark 1) (just as the SP is part of the anti war movement - and equally critical of the attempts at cross-class alliance over working class leadership/tactics of that movement). Thy were not members of ANL (mark 2) though. We felt it was a very different organisation and were in a position to be better able put forward our own clear socialist alternative across through the YRE - although we were happy to work in a united front manner with them where possible (not made easy by the leadership of the ANL2 - as the march on welling showed)
There is a very good reason for making the point - it is not to have a go at the ANL but to point out the basic socialist point about how to defeat fascist ideas - through independent working class mobilisation to defend their own conditions. Where the threat of fascism has been defeated - it has been because of that mobilisation (one in which anti-fascist propaganda gets an echo rather than under the leadership and/orthe skill or otherwise of anti-fascists)
The common claim made is that the ANL defeated the NF. I disagree with that simplistic view and see the ability to cut across the NFs ideas as not just the necessary anti-fascist propaganda but - and I would say primarily - workers going through the experience of defending and extending their rights and conditions - so yes, the winter of discontent etc. It was a successful alternative to blaming/scapgoating other for ones conditions - and showed people a glimpse of their own power. Thats why I think a socialists role in building opposition to fascism is to work on a socialist alternative of a workers movement. That's not opposing involving vicers who are supportive - but their own initiatives should be left to them.
Similarly, I'd love to think that the role played by carefully organised teams of anti-fascists (in support of widr anti-fascist groups) - which I was one of many involved in - was what pushed the BNP away from attempts at 'controling the streets' - but it simply not true.
I'll read the links
dennisr
the acceptable face
And no you cannot separate the organisation from the members. Pretending that the membership are too stupid, so gullible they have been missled generation after generation by the SW leadership, is just a sorry pathetic excuse for a political analysis. It is just so arrogant, ignorant, and has exactly the opposite effect to that which you wish to achieve (forcing
Just on this one point. I don't think they are gullible and stupid - otherwise so many would not have left, we would not have the revolving door membership that exists. I think lots of genuine, very sound people join. They end up demoralised and sometimes burn-out as a result of the tactics they are given to use by their organisation. That is a loss to the working class.
I am happy to give concrete examples of what tactical mistakes are made to illustrate the initial list of what I regarded as tactical errors
You say you are critical but you do not seem to be asking the questions someone who has argued for marxist ideas on these boards in the past would be asking? You seem to be framing your response to the mistaken critisisms (ones that I would argue miss the point) of some of the 'ultra-antiswappie' critics rather than through the framework you already had yourself? Like I said earlier - trotters on the united front tactic and comparing it with your organisation's approach would be a good start.
ps yes, obviously I think I am right all the time (I am probably very short and its probably a napoleon thingy)
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
so only those who stop in the party and all those like me who are now inactive, but still see no better on the left than sw are gullible and stupid. but let#s leave that, because it is getting us nowhere. Why are the leadership so so "stupid"? It is no wonder so many on the left end up suggesting SW is an MI5 plot, its the only place your argument can logically end imo.
of course I have read Trotsky on the United front. why can#t you accept the obvious, me and you could both read the same book and come to different viewpoints.
Again it comes out of the same question, as you said earlier, do we both have the same aims but in different viewpoints genuinely held on how we achieve those aims, or is SW a MI5 plot?if only that was the problem. You see, the reason I constantly hammer this point is because, if the left cannot engage with the SW with whom they do share 99.9% of values and aims, how can they engage with the working class with its greater degree of contradictory levels of consciousness? Accept that the struggle/history changes ideas, and concentrate on uniting struggle, instead of trying to cross all the t's and . all the i's in prescribe a programme, the working class will probably ignore anyway.ps yes, obviously I think I am right all the time (I am probably very short and its probably a napoleon thingy)
I absolutely do agree with SW's prescription of concentrating on what unites us. Where I think SW go wrong, is where it breaks this prescription.
[ now there is a good topic (contradiction levels of consciousness) to start with, on your thesis about SW being superior to the working-class).
dennisr
the acceptable face
Thats right
a) I think its all a conspiracy
b) I think every member of the SWP is fuckin idiot and that was the limit of what i said
c) Everyone else is so, so unwilling to 'engage' (and, ergo, have not tried to 'engage' and 'involve' again and again and again...)
and therefore...
d) ... how will everyone else ever engage with the wider working class given they cannot with these 'class fighters' (must have been a mirage)
You are right Resistance discussion is futile with an idiot like me.
cheers for 'trying'
a) I think its all a conspiracy
b) I think every member of the SWP is fuckin idiot and that was the limit of what i said
c) Everyone else is so, so unwilling to 'engage' (and, ergo, have not tried to 'engage' and 'involve' again and again and again...)
and therefore...
d) ... how will everyone else ever engage with the wider working class given they cannot with these 'class fighters' (must have been a mirage)
You are right Resistance discussion is futile with an idiot like me.
cheers for 'trying'
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
I'm no idiot.
I was in Bradford at the time and I never saw any Militant, LPYS whatever doing the hard slog of going around council estates and houses leafletting, organising effectively. I remember it was mostly the SWP and groups like the Indian Workers Association doing most of that graft. Similar for Lewisham, but it was mainly local black youth and a Cypriot gang who put a stop to the NF that day as an organised bloc, even if they didn't know it?
I was in Bradford at the time and I never saw any Militant, LPYS whatever doing the hard slog of going around council estates and houses leafletting, organising effectively. I remember it was mostly the SWP and groups like the Indian Workers Association doing most of that graft. Similar for Lewisham, but it was mainly local black youth and a Cypriot gang who put a stop to the NF that day as an organised bloc, even if they didn't know it?
cockneyrebel
New Member
dennisr
the acceptable face
I can only take second hand from lewisham folk who were (and are still...) there - I would have been a wee bit too young but two people in particular - that i could actually introduce you too - both of them joined the then still small Militant as a result of the experience. That is the view of both participants, nether of whom would be likely to lie to me, neither being that type of person and both being participants on the day and in the build up. Of course plenty of individuals joined that bloc - including these two. Of course local youths took up the idea on a big scale - that was the potential the SWP recognised and formed the ANL1 as a result of. You will know, being no idiot, that in events like that it usually takes a team of experienced folk to ensure tactics are taken up by wider groups of individuals around them. A large organised group set themselves the task of blocking the road and therefore the march - they refused to be broken up by police tactics and stood their ground - so who was that element and what held them together? - my friends say an LPYS/Militant bloc. I think those participants should put their experiences on record and have been pushing for this.
I don't know any participants in Bradford and would have assumed that all groups would have worked to build that first march - BUT it was the Militants that called it and initiated the idea of mass street opposition, others followed in building for it in practice of course, I would expect that - so what? - and it goes without saying the Militants would have put every effort into what would have been a major event for them at the time. it was also one of the four areas where the Militant - then quite a small organisation had their biggest base (later an MP - Pat Wall) so i would not be convinced if you are arguing they did not play a key role. I am not trying to say 'it was our lot not your lot that did everything' - I am saying the initiative was taken by our then small lot though. As I acknowledged in my first post - AFTER lewisham it was the SWP who were in a position to take up the initiative on a national basis with the birth of ANL (mark 1)
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I've only read about the first 15%, even so far it does seem the article is shaping up to what I would agree with. I'm stopping now to make this comment because later in the article there will probably be a bit I disagree with. This bit;
is absolutely spot on. It is nothing to do with cheques, conflicts f character, mistakes, or even the deadening bureaucratic hand of the SWP, in my opinion. (well that might be the human emotional response of some people, but it isn't a cold logical reason, in my opinion.) hmmm, even that is not as spot-on as I first stop in truly representing the SW position, but it is good enough, and far more accurate than anything else I've seen on here and elsewhere.
however, it's what you start to go on to which reflects my own tentative leanings.
there is an element of the BNP vote, which is the "antipolitics" vote.the mainstream politics is the anathema, and however vile and disgusting the BNP is, to the degree it is the ultimate two fingers to the mainstream. Why shouldn't the voters also have an opportunity to flick two fingers to the mainstream from the Revolutionary left?
I also think there are several other reasons why this would be better for revolutionaries. Would it be better for the working class? Would the working class want it? I haven't got clue what I am talking about here, (disclaimer) and just chewing the fat to see if there is any vitamin value in it.
I will go on and read the rest now.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
It is observably obvious revolutionaries have problems working together, hence the constant comments from Mr Baldwin. It's not a matter of not being able to engage with SW, that wasn't the limits of what I said, the revolutionaries sketchs from the life of Brian are not about SW, are they? there is even a problem siting ALL solutions to the problems of the Revolutionary left working together, in the Revolutionary left, in my opinion.
To develop my criticisms of SW, but also where I think SW got things right, will take some discussion. But I do find it impossible to start such a discussion without challenging your premise, the leadership of SW is somehow distinct from the membership. For in my opinion I am as responsible for the breakup of respect, as John Rees. The SW model for respect was democratically agreed upon. People were argued with, and won to it. Thirdly, and lastly, despite everything that has been said i advocated this model because I truly believe this was best interest of the working class. I believe everybody in SW advocated it for the same reason.
Now I am sorry. You have touched a raw nerve. over the years on this website I have been infuriated, constantly hearing this argument, and I honestly believe it is completely unsustainable. In fact, I would say those people who argue SW is controlled by MI5 arguement, is more sustainable than those people who put the weaker version. For a least in the MI5 version, there is a motive for the leadership to deceive the gullible membership that follow them for 30 or 40 years, and to alienate good activist from the movement.
For me any honest discussion does have to start from 'we are very similar in our politics really', and the possibility we could all be wrong. We don't need complicated theories, just an acceptance that SW is political analysis is wrong, perhaps the criticisms of SW's political analysis is wrong, or perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. I think the argument from top dog and butchers apron, there is something innate in the political analysis, the superstructure so to speak, may have some legs, however I also think there are issues in the base. And I think some issues of the base relationship to the Revolutionary superstructure undermined the anarchist alternative. But I'm running away here and putting the cart before the horse.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Lewisham was complicated because there were several large interwoven groups. No-one can claim that they and only they alone were responsible for stopping the fascists, and it is quite arrogant to do so.
The initial opposition march to the NF was called by the CP and South East Region of the TUC, with bishops etc in tow. They intended to march away from the NF and hold a peaceful rally. There was a deliberate attempt by certain organised groups to create a breakaway aiming to physically confront the NF. The largest of these on the CPGB led march were the IS/SWP and the IMG. (I was in the IMG contingent, which was large, about 1,000+, very organised, marching in ranks arm to arm with stewards at the end of each rank, with the clear intent and organisation to confront the police and/or nazis; remember the IMG had done the same at Red Lion Square in 1974 and lost a member of their contingency and nearly got banned).
I don't deny that Militant had a plan as well, but I wasn't in their contingent and my recollection is that they were not in much evidence on the CP march. The IS/SWP and IMG sections and others peeled off the CP march at an pre-agreed pointand went to confront. It is quite possible that due to the police intervention, some people went directly there, I assume the LPYS/Militant went directly to the NF. The aim of the IS/SWP and IMG was certainly to try to win trade union and community delegations on the main march to joining them in confronting the Nazis.
Certainly Militant/LPYS were not the only people intent on stopping the Nazis, the IS/SWP and IMG also did, but the police intervention led to a fragmentation.
chilango
Ha! Ha! Armageddon
dennisr
the acceptable face
I'll give it one more go. I think I raised problems in the approach - the methods they use - that the SWP have in both working with other left groups and with wider movements. I virtually listed them in a para with semi-colons. I would be happy to give catagorical examples to illustrate each if you like? - if there is much point to it. This was the very first paragraph of my very first post in reply to you. This method is the 'life of brian' approach you mentioned
I understand that - and I feel sorry that I have been a bit of a bull in a china shop - i don't think my more cynical final paragraph assisted much in getting across the actual list if reasons i am very wary of SWP intervention in any other movement. Rather its somewhat cruel innuendo sidelined the substance of my initial points.
But do I believe in conspiracy theories - no, unlikely, I am opposed to the method and approach of the SWP in practice. I think it has proven dangerous and ended up with the rest of the left being tarred with the same brush. It is also about personal experience for me - when agreed previously agreed meeting points and tactics have been completely ruined - putting people, not just 'my people' in danger after the intervention of SWP 'leaders' - hence the level of personal cynisism
That comes from different groups working together practicaly - genuine united front work - trotters entire writing on the subject as around answering the question 'how do revolutionaries draw the best SPD (reformist) workers to them' in confronting fascism in 30s germany. What method provides both effective tactics against fascist street fighters AND exposes the limitations of the reformist leaders by showing the unity in practice of the communist and socialist workers.
In recent UK history we have had the experience of the SAs and the SSP and various union left v right battles - it does not look good at all for the SWP in my opinion. If this was a method that had been carried out once or twice I would be the first to argue that 'folk learn from their mistakes', 'give em a chance', 'better with than without' - but its not the case. If the same mistake is being carried out repeatedly it does not mean I call it a conspiracy - but it does mean I end up pointing the finger and saying this is the method this organisation uses continuously and it is wrong because.... etc
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Cockney Rebel, the vast majority of the article, the central point of its argument, many of its criticisms of the present situation, and even some of the solutions, I THINK, I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH. If we look at it purely on the basis of its analysis of where we are, and where we need to go, it probably concurs with my views to a scale of nine out of 10.
I did have a number of quotes, and was going to pick at to try and make my point, but hopefully I can make my point more succinctly like this.
Structure versus Agency, or recognition of the role of both?
I think it was trotsky in the History of the Russian Revolution who said something like, those who attacked Charles the first and the Czar of Russia as being responsible for the revolutions because of their weakness of character ignored reality. The point is at the time of both revolutions there were forces at work that created these characters, and didn't give them much room to be anything else than they were. But even if these individuals had been the strongest men in the world, there were forces at work beyond the scope of the individual king or Czar. I personally feel much more comfortable with this structuralist analysis of the role of the individual. There are several sentences, in a very long article, I would love to be able to rip from the article, because in my opinion they undermined the article. I could never imagine Cliff writing, "workers Power disagreed with SW because of so and so's personality". I cannot imagine Tony Cliff writing "George Galloway is building a vehicle for himself and his own self-seeking allies". In all my reading socialist worker has always concentrated on the forces in action, when interpreting historical events.[1]
Now looking at history through my political goggles, there are some points of historical "fact" I would have to debate, but to the vast majority of the article, the central point of its argument, many of its criticisms of the present situation, and even some of the solutions, I THINK, I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH. If we look at it purely on the basis of its analysis of where we are, and where we need to go, it probably concurs with my views to a scale of nine out of 10.
Footnote
[1] Having said that, an individual in chime with the times could play a massive role. "Lenin as an almost unique soothsayer, capable of understanding what was necessary at any given time and of then bending the stick, politically and organisationally, to ensure that the party acted on his instincts." is the picture Trotsky paints from my reading of the book the Russian Revolution. Reading between the lines, the doting admiration of Lenin from Trotsky is apparent. And one example from me of Lenins agency playing a decisive role within the structural forces, would be the way Lenin gets off the train, realises he had been wrong and Trotsky was right, and argues almost against the entire party about the permanent nature of the revolution, rather than the stagist view of the revolution held by most of the party.
Secondly, looking at the broader structural forces, does not deny there are individuals within respect "when you leave the door open, you let in flies" who are there purely to serve the whole personal interests, and that deny their role has not added to the details of the breakup. But as with the cheques, mistakes, etc they are not the fundamental reasons for the split.
the vast majority of the article, the central point of its argument, many of its criticisms of the present situation, and even some of the solutions, I THINK, I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH. If we look at it purely on the basis of its analysis of where we are, and where we need to go, it probably concurs with my views to a scale of nine out of 10.
I did have a number of quotes, and was going to pick at to try and make my point, but hopefully I can make my point more succinctly like this.
Structure versus Agency, or recognition of the role of both?
I think it was trotsky in the History of the Russian Revolution who said something like, those who attacked Charles the first and the Czar of Russia as being responsible for the revolutions because of their weakness of character ignored reality. The point is at the time of both revolutions there were forces at work that created these characters, and didn't give them much room to be anything else than they were. But even if these individuals had been the strongest men in the world, there were forces at work beyond the scope of the individual king or Czar. I personally feel much more comfortable with this structuralist analysis of the role of the individual. There are several sentences, in a very long article, I would love to be able to rip from the article, because in my opinion they undermined the article. I could never imagine Cliff writing, "workers Power disagreed with SW because of so and so's personality". I cannot imagine Tony Cliff writing "George Galloway is building a vehicle for himself and his own self-seeking allies". In all my reading socialist worker has always concentrated on the forces in action, when interpreting historical events.[1]
Now looking at history through my political goggles, there are some points of historical "fact" I would have to debate, but to the vast majority of the article, the central point of its argument, many of its criticisms of the present situation, and even some of the solutions, I THINK, I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH. If we look at it purely on the basis of its analysis of where we are, and where we need to go, it probably concurs with my views to a scale of nine out of 10.
Footnote
[1] Having said that, an individual in chime with the times could play a massive role. "Lenin as an almost unique soothsayer, capable of understanding what was necessary at any given time and of then bending the stick, politically and organisationally, to ensure that the party acted on his instincts." is the picture Trotsky paints from my reading of the book the Russian Revolution. Reading between the lines, the doting admiration of Lenin from Trotsky is apparent. And one example from me of Lenins agency playing a decisive role within the structural forces, would be the way Lenin gets off the train, realises he had been wrong and Trotsky was right, and argues almost against the entire party about the permanent nature of the revolution, rather than the stagist view of the revolution held by most of the party.
Secondly, looking at the broader structural forces, does not deny there are individuals within respect "when you leave the door open, you let in flies" who are there purely to serve the whole personal interests, and that deny their role has not added to the details of the breakup. But as with the cheques, mistakes, etc they are not the fundamental reasons for the split.
the vast majority of the article, the central point of its argument, many of its criticisms of the present situation, and even some of the solutions, I THINK, I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH. If we look at it purely on the basis of its analysis of where we are, and where we need to go, it probably concurs with my views to a scale of nine out of 10.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
and stop the War?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
ok start with 1 "But alliances are not created by back room deals".
dennisr
the acceptable face
A better explaination than me, (and easier for me to do a quick and lazy search...) if you are interested:
What happened to the Socialist Alliance? (ST Nov/Dec 2003)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/79/socalliance.html
The message of the June elections (ST, July Aug2004)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/85/britain.html
The politics of the anti-war movement (ST, may 2003)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/74/stwc.html
George Galloway’s ‘Respect initiative’ (ST, feb 2004)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/80/respect.html
Galloway’s credo (ST sept 2004)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/86/galloway.html
The problem with Respect (Nov 2005)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/96/respect.html
The crisis in Respect (Dec/Jan 2007/8)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/114/respect.html
on the stop the war coalition (from the Dec03 article above):
"We are in favour of building a broad movement against war on the basis of clear anti-war aims. All those participating in the STWC should have the right to argue the case for their own policies and perspectives. In other words, it should be a ‘united front’. But we oppose the dilution of the Coalition’s policies to the lowest common denominator to try to accommodate people like Charles Kennedy, Ken Clark and Mo Mowlam, who do not share the Coalition’s principled opposition to the war. Adopting a ‘classic’ popular front approach we would, in reality, be accepting that the anti-war movement’s fair-weather friends would be the ones determining our policy. Instead we strove to orientate the Coalition towards the forces that were most determined in their opposition to war, above all the class-conscious sections of the working class and radicalised young people.
After the onset of conflict the hoped for Liberal and Labour rebel backing ebbed away. And, as things were posed more sharply, with a greater debate about many elements of the Coalition’s strategy, many activists felt it needed a more concrete plan of action than simply calling demonstrations – important as they were – protesting harder or shouting louder. In particular, the specific issue of delivering strike action through the left trade union leaders and activists who support the STWC was the crucial issue that needed to be successfully addressed.
The STWC’s initial development benefited from the huge anger generated against US imperialism and its main representative in Britain, Tony Blair. But for the Coalition to have brought down Blair and stopped the war it needed to turn its promise of mass civil disobedience into a reality."
Back room deals as an example: from the Feb 04 edition above:
... "The SWP’s undemocratic reputation has provided ammunition to union leaders who want to keep the Labour link. FBU general secretary Andy Gilchrist, unable to advance positive reasons why the fire-fighters’ union should continue to fund Labour, has pointed to "something fundamentally different from the Labour Party" about the Socialist Alliance, "in terms of accountability and representation". The SA is "not actually constituted so that organisations can affiliate". (Red Pepper, September 2002) Even the PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka, the only prominent non-SWP trade unionist in the SA, conceded, in this Red Pepper ‘roundtable discussion’, that "Andy is right in pointing out that the Socialist Alliance, for instance, has a weak constitutional structure".
and it continues later...
... "Unfortunately Respect, whose major component is once again the SWP, appears to be making the same mistake. With no genuinely open pre-discussion on how to build a democratic, inclusive electoral coalition, Respect is being launched at a national rally in January. Nonetheless, the Socialist Party will engage in any discussions that may take place. Socialists must stand for the maximum possible unity of the left and be prepared to work with others, including in the electoral field. However, it also vital to fight to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and that future formations are developed on a healthy and democratic basis."
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I was recently reading an article from a science news e-mail I receive on a regular basis, about what modern democracy could learn from democracy on pirate ships. It was saying how it was quite advanced because contrary to the common myth, everything was democratically controlled, including the election of the captain. However, in times when a hasty decision had to be taken for speed of action such as when in battle, the captain had complete and utter control. This is meant to be the way by which democratic centralism works. In this sense, I have no problem whatsoever with the Central committee taking power in negotiations, back room deals, following the wikll that was imposed upon the Central committee by the democratic structures, national conference etc. (Let's not get into a discussion at this stage about whether this is what SW does in practice) However, you don't seem to making that point, the point you are making it seems to me to be is, the structures that SW have achieved on two occasions are not democratic enough because they don't allow trade unions to get involved. I don't know enough about this topic to say whether you are right or wrong. Clearly it was used as an excuse. However, didn't Serwotka recently attend the SW faction of respect, whilst refusing to attend the Galloway faction of respect. So the way I am answering your question is, yes there is back room deals, I don't particularly have a problem with that, and yes these backroom deals may have led to structures which may not be as good as they should be, but why is there any reason believe these have come about because of any Machiavellian tendencies innate in SW .
I suppose a lot of SW members may be insulted by this, but perhaps they are not very good as a reformists. I know that though I had the mental capacity to carry out my role as a MP candidates agent, the will was not really there. I volunteered as a democratic centralist duty, to abide by a democratically agreed position to be tested in practice. But I cant say I ever enjoyed electoral politics. In fact I would say it was one of the most interminable and demoralising activities of my experience of politics, and I have had some pretty shit experiences. The whole truth is often complicated, and contradictory. It is that this reason, SW members revolutionaries rather than reformist, I would actually partially agree with people who say SW cannot work in electoral alliances. This is unless they are only expected by their partners to bring to the table what is in their nature, an enthusiasm and an ability to get things done brought about through party discipline. I can fully understand why Fisher and the child Galloway faction wanted to move towards the Scottish Socialist party model, and some variants of that, but I think SW is completely right to be wary of that model. That model produced a party that did nothing to intervene in the stop the War movement. Its answer to the war was, join the Scottish Socialist party, the same answer it gave to everything. (Understand is a gross caricature but,,,,,,,,,,.)
So again, I accept the possibility of mistakes, don't really have a problem with backroom deals, so don't really have a problem with this issue.
Next issue. "it is not by using the dominance of one organisations vote in a small organisation". This is another charge I see over and over again. What is the solution? SW should join organisations, but not exercise its voting rights? Or, the views of a party with 12 men and a dog, should be given parity to SW, OR FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY given parity to the thousands of people flooding into a mass party? people always think this principle is about SW controlling a tiny little party, ludicrous, rather than recognizing this is about democracy, and preparing for a proper democratic dialogue between revolutionaries and "the masses". (With hindsight, preparing for the floating in of "the masses" may have been over optimistic. )
PS.can I just say I am sorry, but I found the reading of those articles awful. this is not me being deliberately awkward. as I said I enjoyed the one from Cockney. in future I would prefer it if you made your own points, they are more succinct and easily readable.
I suppose a lot of SW members may be insulted by this, but perhaps they are not very good as a reformists. I know that though I had the mental capacity to carry out my role as a MP candidates agent, the will was not really there. I volunteered as a democratic centralist duty, to abide by a democratically agreed position to be tested in practice. But I cant say I ever enjoyed electoral politics. In fact I would say it was one of the most interminable and demoralising activities of my experience of politics, and I have had some pretty shit experiences. The whole truth is often complicated, and contradictory. It is that this reason, SW members revolutionaries rather than reformist, I would actually partially agree with people who say SW cannot work in electoral alliances. This is unless they are only expected by their partners to bring to the table what is in their nature, an enthusiasm and an ability to get things done brought about through party discipline. I can fully understand why Fisher and the child Galloway faction wanted to move towards the Scottish Socialist party model, and some variants of that, but I think SW is completely right to be wary of that model. That model produced a party that did nothing to intervene in the stop the War movement. Its answer to the war was, join the Scottish Socialist party, the same answer it gave to everything. (Understand is a gross caricature but,,,,,,,,,,.)
So again, I accept the possibility of mistakes, don't really have a problem with backroom deals, so don't really have a problem with this issue.
Next issue. "it is not by using the dominance of one organisations vote in a small organisation". This is another charge I see over and over again. What is the solution? SW should join organisations, but not exercise its voting rights? Or, the views of a party with 12 men and a dog, should be given parity to SW, OR FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY given parity to the thousands of people flooding into a mass party? people always think this principle is about SW controlling a tiny little party, ludicrous, rather than recognizing this is about democracy, and preparing for a proper democratic dialogue between revolutionaries and "the masses". (With hindsight, preparing for the floating in of "the masses" may have been over optimistic.
)PS.can I just say I am sorry, but I found the reading of those articles awful. this is not me being deliberately awkward. as I said I enjoyed the one from Cockney. in future I would prefer it if you made your own points, they are more succinct and easily readable.
dennisr
the acceptable face
I agree with that point (to an extent - bit of a romanticised generalisation about 'all' pirates though)
The problem is we are talking about building a wider organisation which is only possible if wider forces are attracted to that organisation. Therefore one has to:
a) air the dirty laundry first and have a clear programme democratically hammered out 'pirate stylee' - so what you actually have in common is open and clear and your representatives on that wider organisation are putting forward a programme that has already been agreed internally, 'pirate captain stylee' - not making up the programme on the hoof
and b) especially when attracting other forces who will be understandably wary of you - agreeing in advance a clear, inclusive and open democratic structure (seperate from backroom deals between any democratic centralist grouping and the other forces it is already working with) see below for an important expansion on this aspect of the new 'pirate ship organisation'
Sadly, I would argue they make perfect reformists in the bad old sense of the word but 'bad reformists' in the sense that 'revolutionaries should be the best reformers'.
With respect the SWP went from:
a) complete (and crude...) opposition (30+ years) to elections as 'sewing illusions in bourg. democracy'
to b) 'vote for us and everything will change' (crudely put shorthand - but I think my point stands). Almost classic reformist 'electoral cretinism' (to use the olde worldy marxist lingo) - electoral victories presented in enough as and of themselves - but we both know - as revolutionaries - that this is not enough - so why delude people? because gorgeous george wanted this?
I think this is a telling comment - and reflects the views of a lot of the old style ultra-left SWP - the ones probably lost in the recent respect adventure. This is the reason I think the SWP has really destroyed itself with respect - it was too much of a leap from the previous mistakes to the new mistaken approach for many of its own members. Its whole raison de etre (is that how one says that...?) was its verbal and posturing 'hardline' revolutionary approach - the Militants spend decades being attacked by such purists who did not want to get their hands dirty (in the literal not actual sense). It is ironic now being atacked for our apparent ultra-leftism on united front and anti-war work etc... but anyway... It really exposes an unfortunate lack of understanding of how - if ever - revolutionaries are going to get the ear of the working class in this country. You cannot simply walk away from the hard tasks because of an attack of 'revolutionary purity'. The Anti-War movement and Respect (which came out of it) was the first definitive involvement in mass struggle and it really has not worked out well. I suppose you could argue that the original ANL was the other example - and the SWP did come out of this smelling of roses largely - but it was a very specific thing at a very specific time
Next issue. "it is not by using the dominance of one organisations vote in a small organisation". This is another charge I see over and over again. What is the solution? SW should join organisations, but not exercise its voting rights? Or, the views of a party with 12 men and a dog, should be given parity to SW, OR FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY given parity to the thousands of people flooding into a mass party? people always think this principle is about SW controlling a tiny little party, ludicrous, rather than recognizing this is about democracy, and preparing for a proper democratic dialogue between revolutionaries and "the masses". (With hindsight, preparing for the floating in of "the masses" may have been over optimistic.
If your intention and belief as an organisation is that only you are the true representatives of the working class (regardless of wether the working class believe this at the moment or not...) then that approach may be 'acceptable' to you. But it misses the point of the wider organisation your group is intending to work with entirely.
How are you going to build joint action? How are you going to build a genuine trust - despite previous waryness and continuing political differences? - not, in my opinion, by crushing the alternative viewpoints within any organisation till in its infancy. That has the opposite effect - it reinforces the mistrust of your organisation and the idea of an undemocratic group imposing its will by force. Discussions have to be had out openly - not when the central committee deems them to be acceptable debates.
That is also healthy for your own organisation - it develops a layer of people who are use to open and democratic debate beyond your own little grouping - it sharpens and corrects your wee groupings own progamme here mistaken. The SP would be the first to point out how limiting the present situation (although primarily lack of a mass movement - although partialy lack of a wider forum for genuine discussion and debate) has been for the development of it own members
And it is nothing new - the early SA (before the SWP joined on the basis of forcing a change the constitution) is a good example of a federal structure - which, regardless of our political differences did not allow the then dominant group to stop debate. It did not stop the SP voting on bloc for its own views - but guaranteed minority rights (as a democratic centralist organisation should internally by the way - something I think maybe a little different to the more military 'pirate' approach).
A clear programme on which all agree and and open democratic organisation guarenteeing minority viewpoints - that is the basis of some thing that mass of people can consider joining
That is why others had such high hopes for the idea of a united left electoral force. It is why we walked out when the majority of smaller groups desperate for the 'inclusion' of the SWP mistakenly voted for the change in constitution.
No problem - but I have to work for a living mate and these articles put the discussion we are having in better context
dennisr
the acceptable face
As an aside Resist - have you heard of a book called 'The many-headed hydra - The hidden history of the revolutionary Atlantic' by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. Makes some leaps of imagination but is still a grand read - interesting stuff, makes you think (recommended originally by butchersapron)
Similar threads
