Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why are the swp so popular?

Bakunin said:
I wonder how long it will be before Rees and German suddenly have an apparent 'epiphany' and start letting us in on all the Swappies dodgy little skeletons in their cupboard, in an attempt to try and rehabilitate themselves politically.
Click to expand...

rehabilitate themselves with who?

sad thing is, even when the SWP finishes collapsing I don't see much else waiting to fill the vacuum on the Left.
 
chilango said:
rehabilitate themselves with who?

sad thing is, even when the SWP finishes collapsing I don't see much else waiting to fill the vacuum on the Left.
Click to expand...

Try and rehabilitate themselves with the rest of the left, maybe, as unlikely a prospect as that would be given that lefties tend to have long memories.\

Personally, I reckon the SWP (and Leninism in general) needs to collapse and be swept away before new groups and new ideas can really start to flourish. It doesn't seem any real suprise to me that, in the last few years at least, the groups and projects that seem to be making headway (Climate Camp being one) seem to be the ones that have been organised independently of the Swappies and without the Swappies being able to either set up yet another front group and hive off recruits or take over existing groups and run them as Swappie fronts. To my mind there's something inherently dishonest about running front groups anyway.

The sooner the Leninist left in general, and the SWP in particular, finds itself in the proverbial dustbin of history the better, IMHO. I won't be sorry when that finally happens and I reckon it will sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
 
I am astonished that Harman can write:

“One very disturbing feature of this meeting was the attitude of Galloway’s supporters towards women members of Respect. …The point, however, is that the left have always sought to resist such behaviour. …”

This is simply untrue.

I spoke to a number of the CC and senior members about the sexism and discrimination I’d experienced for several years in “The Party”, and wrote to several, but none of them would take it further. One senior member laughed when I said I wanted to take it to the Control Commission and he, not unsympathetically, explained to me the practical purpose of that body. That is: to instill discipline for the lower orders, not to see justice done.

I did ask Rees more than once what I’d done to deserve the dehumanising treatment they were meting out. Had I done anything personally or politically to offend anyone? All he could blurt was that my behaviour on all counts was “exemplary”.

Was it because I wasn’t on the “fuck circuit”? Senior members, including one senior woman of long standing who was close to Cliff, seemed to think this was a distinct possibility. They know it happens but they won’t deal with it.

You come into the movement with the aim of advancing it. You end up submerged in the shit of strangers.
Click to expand...


Here is what Anna Chen who was very much involved in STWC, et5c, has to say about the SWP hierarchy and its sexism, , though also note the bit about 'disciplining the lower orders'
 
The SWP are really not that important and certainly don't deserve all the attention that they get on this forum from some soi-disant anarchists.
 
The SWP are not popular. The legion of dissillusioned ex-members greatly outweighs their membership. At best they offer an 'introduction' to how not run a campaign or party.
There weakness can be seen in their absence from members 'debating' on boards on instruction from the leadership. Very cultist, methinks: "they are all wrong, we are right, follow the one true way"

popular
1. Widely liked or appreciated
2. Liked by acquaintances; sought after for company
3. Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large
4. Fit for, adapted to, or reflecting the taste of the people at large:
5. Accepted by or prevalent among the people in
6. Suited to or within the means of ordinary people
7. Originating among the people
 
There weakness can be seen in their absence from members 'debating' on boards on instruction from the leadership. Very cultist, methinks: "they are all wrong, we are right, follow the one true way"
Click to expand...



Sadly that is not always the case, plenty of the SWP post on here
 
treelover said:
Sadly that is not always the case, plenty of the SWP post on here
Click to expand...
:D

I dunno.. I know in Ireland their mini herd are discouraged from Indymedia et al. I havent seen too many SWP keyboard warriors about here either..
Hopefully they will come out and prove me wrong..

Helllllooooooo....
 
SWP v SP FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!!!

Just read Peter Taffes book :mad:"WHY I HATE THE SWP":mad:: Socialist & Left Unity.:rolleyes:
Fucking Brilliant.
Definitely Entertainment Value.
Although I agree with a lot that he says is this really what we need at the moment: could be seen as sugar coated sectarianism.

When are we going to get the riposte from the new breed in SWP.
Peter Taffe comes across saying that the Millies/SP would'nt even fart in public, let alone anything else
 
frogwoman said:
.... they have done a lot of things i really do disagree with, like the "we are all hezbollah" shite, ....
Click to expand...

Although the SWP never did that. Placards were brought onto a Stop the War demonstration by a group with nothing to do with the SWP and we defended their right to be on the demonstration.
 
And a big chunk of your members on the march up in scotland chanting it - as commented on by a poster from here at the time (and some discussion within the left web boards/lists)
 
Groucho said:
Although the SWP never did that. Placards were brought onto a Stop the War demonstration by a group with nothing to do with the SWP and we defended their right to be on the demonstration.
Click to expand...

Errrrr sorry to interrupt but on an anti-war Demo in Edinburgh August 2006 members of both the SWP and StWC were chanting 'we are Hezbollah (sp).. we are Hezbollah'. I know this because I was on the demo standing next to them sarcastically replying no i'm not! So you are, as they say, not entirely accurate.
 
The choice in the summer of 2006 was Hezbollah or the IDF. We chose Hezbollah. It was that simple, Hezbollah were the only force that stood between Tel Aviv and Beirut, if they had been defeated the result wouldn't have been peace but more war. To side with the resistance was not to be uncritical and sign up to the full social programme of Hezbollah, but simply to recognise that the best possible result during the war was for the guerilla force (that the majority of Lebanese rallied behind) to kick the ass of the invading force.

We also recognise historical reasons why Hezbollah dominated the resistance. We also recognise that in the moment of war, every socialist with a gun fought alongside Hezbollah. Does this mean that Lebanese socialists should not organise and put forward an independent politics to Hezbollah? No. In fact, the limitations of Hezbollah were shown after the war, when they called off a general strike because their middle class allies weren't happy, allowing sectarianism that had been brushed aside to re-emerge with a vengeance.

At the same time in Britain, our job was to defend Hezbollah from demonisation and persuade people that they were not a terrorist movement but a national liberation movement who represented the right of the Lebanese people by force of arms to resist invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah or Lebanon under the heel of the Israeli State? I know where I stand!
 
Udo Erasmus said:
The choice in the summer of 2006 was Hezbollah or the IDF. We chose Hezbollah. It was that simple, Hezbollah were the only force that stood between Tel Aviv and Beirut, if they had been defeated the result wouldn't have been peace but more war. To side with the resistance was not to be uncritical and sign up to the full social programme of Hezbollah, but simply to recognise that the best possible result during the war was for the guerilla force (that the majority of Lebanese rallied behind) to kick the ass of the invading force.

We also recognise historical reasons why Hezbollah dominated the resistance. We also recognise that in the moment of war, every socialist with a gun fought alongside Hezbollah. Does this mean that Lebanese socialists should not organise and put forward an independent politics to Hezbollah? No. In fact, the limitations of Hezbollah were shown after the war, when they called off a general strike because their middle class allies weren't happy, allowing sectarianism that had been brushed aside to re-emerge with a vengeance.

At the same time in Britain, our job was to defend Hezbollah from demonisation and persuade people that they were not a terrorist movement but a national liberation movement who represented the right of the Lebanese people by force of arms to resist invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah or Lebanon under the heel of the Israeli State? I know where I stand!
Click to expand...


That Udo is a dissappointing load of old bollocks. I thought you were better than this.:(
 
Udo Erasmus said:
The choice in the summer of 2006 was Hezbollah or the IDF. We chose Hezbollah. It was that simple, Hezbollah were the only force that stood between Tel Aviv and Beirut, if they had been defeated the result wouldn't have been peace but more war. To side with the resistance was not to be uncritical and sign up to the full social programme of Hezbollah, but simply to recognise that the best possible result during the war was for the guerilla force (that the majority of Lebanese rallied behind) to kick the ass of the invading force.

We also recognise historical reasons why Hezbollah dominated the resistance. We also recognise that in the moment of war, every socialist with a gun fought alongside Hezbollah. Does this mean that Lebanese socialists should not organise and put forward an independent politics to Hezbollah? No. In fact, the limitations of Hezbollah were shown after the war, when they called off a general strike because their middle class allies weren't happy, allowing sectarianism that had been brushed aside to re-emerge with a vengeance.

At the same time in Britain, our job was to defend Hezbollah from demonisation and persuade people that they were not a terrorist movement but a national liberation movement who represented the right of the Lebanese people by force of arms to resist invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah or Lebanon under the heel of the Israeli State? I know where I stand!
Click to expand...


That doesn't explain the student gwant level of politics behind 'we are hezbollah... we are hezbollah' though does it?!
 
Udo Erasmus said:
The choice in the summer of 2006 was Hezbollah or the IDF. We chose Hezbollah. It was that simple, Hezbollah were the only force that stood between Tel Aviv and Beirut, if they had been defeated the result wouldn't have been peace but more war. To side with the resistance was not to be uncritical and sign up to the full social programme of Hezbollah, but simply to recognise that the best possible result during the war was for the guerilla force (that the majority of Lebanese rallied behind) to kick the ass of the invading force.

We also recognise historical reasons why Hezbollah dominated the resistance. We also recognise that in the moment of war, every socialist with a gun fought alongside Hezbollah. Does this mean that Lebanese socialists should not organise and put forward an independent politics to Hezbollah? No. In fact, the limitations of Hezbollah were shown after the war, when they called off a general strike because their middle class allies weren't happy, allowing sectarianism that had been brushed aside to re-emerge with a vengeance.

At the same time in Britain, our job was to defend Hezbollah from demonisation and persuade people that they were not a terrorist movement but a national liberation movement who represented the right of the Lebanese people by force of arms to resist invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah or Lebanon under the heel of the Israeli State? I know where I stand!
Click to expand...
While I agree with much of what you say about the war and where we should stand in this country, I think the 'we are all Hizb' slogan was an opportunist attempt to win over Muslim youth and/or some regurgitated memory of some CC members' recollection of anti-vietnam war protests. Anyway, it clearly alienated parts of the potential audience for an anti-invasion movement who can see the faults of Hizbullah. Also, at a time when it is necessary to build international links I imagine it was likely to piss off any Lebanese revolutionaries who saw what the SWP was saying.

There are plenty of other ways to express a desire for the defeat of Israel in that war - 'Israel out of Lebanon' 'Defeat Israel' 'Victory to the Lebanese resistance' etc.
 
Stop the War Coalition didn't take a position on the resistance and called demonstrations on the slogan of Israel out of Lebanon/Ceasfire Now, but the liberals get upset because they think they should be free to spout their rally around the UN, wishy-washy nonsense and dominate the movement, but anti-imperialists must be silenced. The position of the anti-war movement actually meant that both opinions were given expression. For example, where I live, we had a demonstration where a speaker both condemned Hezbollah and another praised them. (Ironically the politicians who condemned Hezbollah, have been less forthcoming in 'condemning' a huge military academy being built here - funded by Raytheon et al -where it is plausible the IDF might get training)

No, most of the people who were upset were upset because they were guardian reading liberals who oppose imperialism but can't stomach the idea that people effected might actually resist it themselves. UN resolutions against war are okay, the people being invaded taking matters into their own hands is too much for them. They accepted the orientalist demonisation of groups like Hezbollah with little actual knowledge of the politics, history and reality of lebanon.
 
Udo Erasmus said:
The choice in the summer of 2006 was Hezbollah or the IDF. We chose Hezbollah. It was that simple, Hezbollah were the only force that stood between Tel Aviv and Beirut, if they had been defeated the result wouldn't have been peace but more war. To side with the resistance was not to be uncritical and sign up to the full social programme of Hezbollah, but simply to recognise that the best possible result during the war was for the guerilla force (that the majority of Lebanese rallied behind) to kick the ass of the invading force.

We also recognise historical reasons why Hezbollah dominated the resistance. We also recognise that in the moment of war, every socialist with a gun fought alongside Hezbollah. Does this mean that Lebanese socialists should not organise and put forward an independent politics to Hezbollah? No. In fact, the limitations of Hezbollah were shown after the war, when they called off a general strike because their middle class allies weren't happy, allowing sectarianism that had been brushed aside to re-emerge with a vengeance.

At the same time in Britain, our job was to defend Hezbollah from demonisation and persuade people that they were not a terrorist movement but a national liberation movement who represented the right of the Lebanese people by force of arms to resist invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah or Lebanon under the heel of the Israeli State? I know where I stand!
Click to expand...

See Bold

What were you packing, Udo?
 
I don't have a gun. It is a fact that socialists and communists fought alongside Hezbollah and were close comrades-in-arms during the Israeli blitzkrieg of fire and steel. Opinion polls showed 80% support from the general population for Hezbollah's military struggle. The simple fact was that if you didn't want your country occupied you were with Hezbollah. Western liberals might not like that, but it was the brutal truth. 'With Hezbollah' doesn't mean supporting their programme, politics or whatever, just recognising that at that moment of history they were the only thing between Beirut and Tel Aviv.
As I stated half the stuff that you read about Hezbollah on here anyway is just orientalist slanders.

Udo departs to read some Edward Said.
 
During ww2 , the capitalist world supported Stalin against the Nazis, obviously not because they supported communism, simply because Stalin wanted to defeat Nazism. Its the same for "support" of Hezbollah.
 
lobster said:
During ww2 , the capitalist world supported Stalin against the Nazis, obviously not because they supported communism, simply because Stalin wanted to defeat Nazism. Its the same for "support" of Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

20080716111834.jpg


supporting nazis to kill jews?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cupid_stunt
Why the Observer is going down the pan! (no longer part of the Guardian)
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
mentalchik
Why does Football have such a problem with homophobia ?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
platinumsage
Ninja swords are banned from today
2
Replies
48
Views
852
editor
editor
ATOMIC SUPLEX
You Gov poll says if there was an election tomorrow Reform would win.
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
282
Views
6K
chilango
chilango
Aaronf
  • Poll Poll
What people/politicians do you think about and/or dislike the most?
2 3
Replies
85
Views
2K
Aaronf
Aaronf
Back
Top Bottom