Cameron's Referendum

Chilli Sauce

As for honest engagement, come off it, I ain't buying that.

Noah, I re-read S.'s first post on this thread. Snarky and belligerent from the get-go, it ends with that ridiculous comment about the EU not being the IWMA. And you really expect anyone to take him seriously?

I've just re-read every single post by SArt and I swear to god I don't see what your beef is. I saw nothing in the approach or tone of the posts that I haven't seen a thousand times on Libcom before including from other contributors to this thread, me, and dare I say it, your good self. The only thing that puzzles me about the string of posts is the bizzare about turn in strategy but at least that is someone being honest.
Or maybe I'm just fucking with you and our resident psychoanalyst Radical Graffiti has cracked the egg of my id? Scary shit indeed, it's no yolk in there, I'm telling you.

S. Artesian

Wrong in details, indeed. This:

jef costello wrote:

I'd probably vote to stay in if I were in the UK.
The EU seems that it's a better deal to me.

SA

^^Tsiprasism.

Was my first post. And it has all the elements of the later discussion: personal interest-- a "better deal to me," and is in fact the enduring principle of Syriza.

You know what, fair dues. That said, I don't think "Tsiprasism" is a worthwhile contribution inviting reasoned debate, either.

I understand that you as a narcissistic character find it hard to distinguish between the first post and a first post about you

S. Artesian, armchair psychologist and armchair warrior-left nationalist.

Noah, let's look at this. The response to this:

No one has expressed "worry" about visa-less travel, they've only said that from a selfish perspective, visa-free travel might be a reason to vote to stay in. Not the same thing.

People have mentioned worrying about the fate of friends and loved ones who are non-UK nationals living in the UK should the referendum pass. You were quite dismissive, iirc

Was this:

The fall-back position, "what about all those EU emigres to Britain, who might be in jeopardy if the UK leaves" was unfurled as the banner of abstention in response to my challenges.

...Now you want to cover yourself with your concern for emigres. Sure you do. Take your sanctimonious, self-righteous posturing somewhere else. It's enough to gag ten million maggots.

And you think that's arguing in good faith?

The bigger irony being I've talked very little about EU immigration into Britain, only to flag the fact others brought up that concern. S., has made little to no attempt to actually engage in what I or others have said, only relying on strawmen (like the above which was directed explicitly at me) or an endless array of increasing bizarre avocado analogies...

That said, I don't think "Tsiprasism" is a worthwhile contribution inviting reasoned debate, either.

You don't think so? You think somehow what's going on the UK is unrelated to what the EU has imposed on Greece?

You don't think someone saying the EU offers a better deal is precisely the justification that Tsipras used to push through the most recent terms of capitulation?

Amazing.

What has been expressed, to my meager understanding, is that in fact there are a considerable number of emigres in the UK who's status might be jeopardized by the UK leaving the EU, although this initially, and repeatedly was expressed as "a better deal," "freedom of movement," "vacation days," correct?

Indeed there is that risk, which is why the agitation to leave the EU cannot be isolated from the entire question, and demand for the protection of ALL migrants from the state machinery. What on earth would make anyone think that if "I" am not willing to cede the "Out Now" position to the UKIP or Boris Johnsonites, I would be willing to cede the issue of protection of migrants, ALL migrants, to the same collection of thugs and goons.

I've tried to make it clear that you cannot separate, fractionalize the category of migrants between "acceptable," "legal," "protected," and "unacceptable" "illegal" "unprotected," yet that's exactly what those who accede to the EU turning the ongoing necessity of migration into a privilege, do. That's a capitulation; a retreat from what the social issue is, and what the social remedy must be.

Left-fucking-nationalist, my dying ass. There's isn't a single word of what I've written that supports British nationalism, or its big brother, EU regionalism.

And I've made it quite clear that my opposition to continued UK participation with EU is not any attempt to secure a "better deal" for "Britain," for UK capitalism, but due to total opposition to capitalism, to the bourgeoisie. I've made it very clear that opposition to staying needs to put on a class basis: i.e. the EU is the executive committee of the European bourgeoisie, the enemy of workers, which the EU has demonstrated through its imposition of austerity programs; its demands for "labor reforms;" its treatment of Greece; its military adventures in Africa; its destruction of subsistence economies; and of the greatest importance its treatment, its inhumane treatment, of migrants and refugees.

I think the cloak of "left-regionalism" might fit Chili better than that of left-nationalism fits me.

Chilli Sauce

Noah, let's look at this. The response to this:

No one has expressed "worry" about visa-less travel, they've only said that from a selfish perspective, visa-free travel might be a reason to vote to stay in. Not the same thing.

People have mentioned worrying about the fate of friends and loved ones who are non-UK nationals living in the UK should the referendum pass. You were quite dismissive, iirc

Was this:

The fall-back position, "what about all those EU emigres to Britain, who might be in jeopardy if the UK leaves" was unfurled as the banner of abstention in response to my challenges.

...Now you want to cover yourself with your concern for emigres. Sure you do. Take your sanctimonious, self-righteous posturing somewhere else. It's enough to gag ten million maggots.

And you think that's arguing in good faith?

The bigger irony being I've talked very little about EU immigration into Britain, only to flag the fact others brought up that concern. S., has made little to no attempt to actually engage in what I or others have said, only relying on strawmen (like the above which was directed explicitly at me) or an endless array of increasing bizarre avocado analogies...

Wow, I missed that one. Still, all the same I'd say much of this conversation has been conducted in bad faith by a number of people. I'm not gonna point fingers coz I don't really give too much of a shit beyond my view that voting is a dry wank and the possible outcomes of either result can hardly even be guessed at.
Anyways, so long as I get my quota of downvotes I'm a happy man. That said, RGs latest post was a welcome treat, post of the thread by a country mile! Upped.

Celebrate with me comrade, I have way more down votes than you!

...about as much good faith as this:

Chili

S., I'm sure TUSC must be jumping for joy to have you on side...

I made it quite clear that I did not endorse TUSC, but that I endorsed their attempt to develop and put forth a class-based, "left"-opposition to remaining in the EU. I asked those finding the TUSC program inadequate, or reactionary to please provide a "sample" of what a class based opposition program would look like.

I think in one post I even took the opportunity to lay out what a class based appeal to support the "leave" position might look like.

I certainly could provide a critique of TUSC's program, but that isn't really the point. The issue for me is, Is there a need to develop a class based opposition to Britain's participation in the EU AND (this is the bit where I lose Noah, and probably others) utilize the referendum to push forward that opposition to Britain remaining in the EU. I answer yes to both.

So those are the two questions I put to anybody on this issue. What are your answers, and what are the reasons for your answers.

SA wrote:

Thank you. I need all the help I can get.

That's ludicrous, as demonstrated by your #306.

factvalue

Celebrate with me comrade, I have way more down votes than you!

Huzzah! Good work shipmate. My first captain taught me the following

'Shiver me sides, only lubbers care for good faith, downvotes are a greater treasure to me than any seamans stash! A hogsheads of rum couldn't make me drunker than a fine collection of downvotes! The intoxication of dissaproval! Arrrh, ahaaaaar, hahahaggghhhrrr me hearty!

FV, NF,

As a gesture of my great respect and esteem for both of you, I will down vote every post you write supporting that notorious left-nationalist-closet UKIP tango-dancing perfidious Albion supporting armchair loving S.Artesian.

Solidarity

Why, it's just like Rome at the time of the first triumvirate, Crassus (Webby, who lubs the Crass in every sense), Pompey (FV, who's by far the most pompous) and Caesar (SA, who's obviously a power crazed nationalist maniac populist of Europasianised AfriYank ambition).

S. Artesian

FV, NF,

As a gesture of my great respect and esteem for both of you, I will down vote every post you write supporting that notorious left-nationalist-closet UKIP tango-dancing perfidious Albion supporting armchair loving S.Artesian.

Solidarity

Check your vote count comrade. You will note the honour which you bestow on me is being studiously returned. Ahh, this once hellish thread is transforming into heaven on Earth. Peace love and disingenuousness to one and all.

factvalue

Why, it's just like Rome at the time of the first triumvirate, Crassus (Webby, who lubs the Crass in every sense), Pompey (FV, who's by far the most pompous) and Caesar (SA, who's obviously a power crazed nationalist maniac populist of Europasianised AfriYank ambition).

Crickey, you must have accessed my NSA profile!

Just in from a pleasant evening with two left leaning relatives. I was surprised they agreed with me that the outcome of the referendum was irrelevant. This was a first time I can remember we have all agreed on anything political.

Is it OK to ask what the general sense is? Will the referendum go the Cameron way or the Johnson way?

S. Artesian

Is it OK to ask what the general sense is? Will the referendum go the Cameron way or the Johnson way?

I think it's quite sensitive to any public scandal regarding the EU, but i suspect it'll be a narrow vote to remain. I'm in a part of the country that's strongly 'remain' though, which probably skews my perception (ranked 300/376 on pro-exit list; in my pretty international workplace, 80% or so back remain according to a recent survey).

Auld-bod

Just in from a pleasant evening with two left leaning relatives. I was surprised they agreed with me that the outcome of the referendum was irrelevant. This was a first time I can remember we have all agreed on anything political.

Funny you should say that, I spoke to both in and out people today. The in person, who was a 'Socialist', agreed with me that the european parliament is pointless because of the power of the EU Commision, he also agreed with me that the EU is a Capitalist institution. Meanwhile the out person I spoke to who was saying he wanted to preserve 'Democracy' had to agree with me when I said that Neo-Liberalism was not democratic, this is someone who said he had voted both Labour and Torie in his life. Bizarre.

red and black riot #320

The shambles of British politics – I got this as part of a sick-making e-mail yesterday:

‘Thousands of 38 Degree members chipped in for independent fact-checkers to cut through the spin about this referendum. A team of experts has investigated the government leaflet line by line, and they’ve separated the facts from the fiction.
Political spin travels fast – but there are millions of us across the UK. If each of us shares the people-powered facts….’

This is seriously ‘Alice In Wonderland’ (though less imaginative).

I stupidly signed a petition and that site has been spamming me ever since, even though I asked not to be kept 'up to date'.

I'm wondering what the vote will be, people at work keep asking me as I'm the only brit. I've got no idea, I think people will vote to stay but I couldn't see how the tories would get in again as their election campaign didn't even try to hide the contempt they feel for everyone who isn't one of their cronies.

If you are going to vote, vote no. These statists and capitalists just get cocky when people are stupid enough to vote for them. So just fuck them off...

Is a no vote better than not voting?

It helps split the Tories and it gets us out of a shitty capitalist club.

I'm just not sure whether being out of the shitty capitalist club is better.

Auld-bod

red and black riot #320

The shambles of British politics – I got this as part of a sick-making e-mail yesterday:

‘Thousands of 38 Degree members chipped in for independent fact-checkers to cut through the spin about this referendum. A team of experts has investigated the government leaflet line by line, and they’ve separated the facts from the fiction.
Political spin travels fast – but there are millions of us across the UK. If each of us shares the people-powered facts….’

This is seriously ‘Alice In Wonderland’ (though less imaginative).

Are their claims incorrect?

Ghost Whistler #325

It is a farce for anyone to claim to know the 'facts'. In reality we select the facts that 'fit'. Beware of so called economic/political 'experts' as capitalism is chaotic therefore not readily predictable. As for 'people-powered facts' well that's just cosmetic waffel to help a liberal bandwagon peddle their bull.

You can simply watch the fun, or make a choice between the frying pan and the fire.

Auld Bod says all you need to know here;

You can simply watch the fun, or make a choice between the frying pan and the fire.

I've been fucking around on this thread partly coz of my playful nature but mostly because I'm confounded that anyone is even thinking about taking part in this farcical wrestling match between two capitalist factions and countless numpties that think they are getting a true democratic opportunity to improve their lives. The whole thing is simply too absurd.

I'm sure I'll be seen as naive on this and I think I udnerstand - even agree - with where you are coming from. But...

The Socialist Party (I'm currently a member for reasons discussed elseehwere) are making the case that we should leave because it's a wholly capitalist enterprise that hasn't done anything for workers etc. We all agree with that I think. But they go on to argue that workers should fight for a better deal and set an example to the rest of europe.

Plus it helps further divide the Tories.

Isn't that worthwhile? Or am i missing the point still?

The Socialist Party (I'm currently a member for reasons discussed elseehwere) are making the case that we should leave because it's a wholly capitalist enterprise that hasn't done anything for workers etc.

Just to clarify that his "Socialist Party" is SPEW (ex-Militant), not the SPGB which has a position of spoiling the vote...or abstain and boycott...It won't legitimise either section of the ruling class by taking sides.

GW, I believe you are missing the point. My biggest disagreement is your mention of the Tories. The current wave of Tory bashing is a huge block to people considering an anti-capitalist position. The blame game and it's bedfellow Corbyn worship take people's gaze away from the fact that the problem is capitalism itself. Government does not direct capital to any significant degree, rather it reacts to capitals requirements. If you think that a change of government will make a re difference to our lives you're barking up the wrong tree. Anti Toryism is a waste of time and I believe is often born out of a kind of reverse snobbery. They're toffs so they must be awful. Check out Labour's record in government, they've been at least as anti working class as the tories, I mean, Gordon Browns neo liberalism was off the scale!!!
I'm working on some written stuff with a comrade about this stuff. With their permission I'll pick out some bits and pieces and come back to post them up.

ajjohnstone

The Socialist Party (I'm currently a member for reasons discussed elseehwere) are making the case that we should leave because it's a wholly capitalist enterprise that hasn't done anything for workers etc.

Just to clarify that his "Socialist Party" is SPEW (ex-Militant), not the SPGB which has a position of spoiling the vote...or abstain and boycott...It won't legitimise either section of the ruling class by taking sides.

It's not 'my' Socialist Party.

I joined them because I wanted people on my side. Is that so hard to udnerstand?

Noah Fence

GW, I believe you are missing the point. My biggest disagreement is your mention of the Tories. The current wave of Tory bashing is a huge block to people considering an anti-capitalist position. The blame game and it's bedfellow Corbyn worship take people's gaze away from the fact that the problem is capitalism itself. Government does not direct capital to any significant degree, rather it reacts to capitals requirements. If you think that a change of government will make a re difference to our lives you're barking up the wrong tree. Anti Toryism is a waste of time and I believe is often born out of a kind of reverse snobbery. They're toffs so they must be awful. Check out Labour's record in government, they've been at least as anti working class as the tories, I mean, Gordon Browns neo liberalism was off the scale!!!
I'm working on some written stuff with a comrade about this stuff. With their permission I'll pick out some bits and pieces and come back to post them up.

Im not defending Labour at all, and I wouldn't characterise my hatred of the Tories as reverse snobbery, more a reaction to the sheer unadulterated nastiness they have been showing these last few years. If may not be productive, but helping them tear themselves apart is at worst schadenfreude.

this bunch of Tories make Thatcher look like a school teacher!

Auld-bod

red and black riot #320

The shambles of British politics – I got this as part of a sick-making e-mail yesterday:

‘Thousands of 38 Degree members chipped in for independent fact-checkers to cut through the spin about this referendum. A team of experts has investigated the government leaflet line by line, and they’ve separated the facts from the fiction.
Political spin travels fast – but there are millions of us across the UK. If each of us shares the people-powered facts….’

This is seriously ‘Alice In Wonderland’ (though less imaginative).

I've seen that post. 38Degrees do some good work otherwise, though. Don't you think?

Ghost Whistler

Auld-bod

red and black riot #320

The shambles of British politics – I got this as part of a sick-making e-mail yesterday:

‘Thousands of 38 Degree members chipped in for independent fact-checkers to cut through the spin about this referendum. A team of experts has investigated the government leaflet line by line, and they’ve separated the facts from the fiction.
Political spin travels fast – but there are millions of us across the UK. If each of us shares the people-powered facts….’

This is seriously ‘Alice In Wonderland’ (though less imaginative).

I've seen that post. 38Degrees do some good work otherwise, though. Don't you think?

if by good things you mean spam people with annoying and pointless petitions

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

Auld-bod

red and black riot #320

The shambles of British politics – I got this as part of a sick-making e-mail yesterday:

‘Thousands of 38 Degree members chipped in for independent fact-checkers to cut through the spin about this referendum. A team of experts has investigated the government leaflet line by line, and they’ve separated the facts from the fiction.
Political spin travels fast – but there are millions of us across the UK. If each of us shares the people-powered facts….’

This is seriously ‘Alice In Wonderland’ (though less imaginative).

I've seen that post. 38Degrees do some good work otherwise, though. Don't you think?

if by good things you mean spam people with annoying and pointless petitions

Are they pointless?

Are they pointless?
Marshalling ‘public opinion’ is often a liberal ploy to delay or embarrass the opposition. In the final analysis it will change little or nothing. It is one of the system’s safety valves, while the authorities manufacture consent with a counter ploy, and sometime it can save them from embarrassing disaster (by pointing out their incompetence).

Ghost Whistler

Are they pointless?

I did sign in favour of something and nothing happened, I didn't sign to save the bees and nothing happened. Petitions are largely pointless as they require the people you are petitioning to give a shit about what you think which they usually don't.
The Tory party will be split whichever way the vote goes so don't worry about that, they've been split for as long as I can remember, although this seems more serious because of UKIP. Althugh they only went one or two steps further than when the BNP had that electoral surge years back.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoy a spot of tory bashing. There are few things more gratifying than firing off a foul mouthed and insulting tweet to the Right Honourable Pig Fucker or any of his chums. I try to be international in my tory bashing but to be honest most of our tories have faded into obscurity after the last election. Given that it is a very rare thing indeed to find anyone passing as a decent human being amongst the tory ranks, I have no qualms at all about disgustingly mean to them. I appreciate this is not something which will in anyway change the status quo but it has been a pastime of mine for many years and I am in no way moved to give it up. Other people enjoy things which are completely mystifying to me, like tennis or Radio 4 comedy shows, but I like being nasty to tories. I guess we all have to get our jollies in different ways.

Fleur

Personally, I thoroughly enjoy a spot of tory bashing. There are few things more gratifying than firing off a foul mouthed and insulting tweet to the Right Honourable Pig Fucker or any of his chums. I try to be international in my tory bashing but to be honest most of our tories have faded into obscurity after the last election. Given that it is a very rare thing indeed to find anyone passing as a decent human being amongst the tory ranks, I have no qualms at all about disgustingly mean to them. I appreciate this is not something which will in anyway change the status quo but it has been a pastime of mine for many years and I am in no way moved to give it up. Other people enjoy things which are completely mystifying to me, like tennis or Radio 4 comedy shows, but I like being nasty to tories. I guess we all have to get our jollies in different ways.

Well, I love tennis and hate Radio 4 comedy apart from the Count Arthur Strong Radio Show which is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. I much prefer Labour bashing, those guys get off way too lightly plus it suits my contrary nature.
Much as I would have favourite characters in a movie I have some favourite politicians. My absolute favourite is Tory Matthew Parris who seems a thoroughly agreeable chap. He did a 'My Political Hero' show on Radio and chose Emma Goldman which is not a bad effort. Much as I am strongly enamoured of Mr Parris I have to admit that my opinion of Ken Livingstone was greatly elevated on hearing of how, as a 10 year old boy, would regularly drop newts down his sister's blouse.

Auld-bod

Are they pointless?
Marshalling ‘public opinion’ is often a liberal ploy to delay or embarrass the opposition. In the final analysis it will change little or nothing. It is one of the system’s safety valves, while the authorities manufacture consent with a counter ploy, and sometime it can save them from embarrassing disaster (by pointing out their incompetence).

Right, but 38d is just a grassroots campaign that, according to them, deals with issues its members choose.

I'm sure they have had plenty of petitions that have gotten nowhere, but some have achieved some success iirc (dont' ask me which). At least awareness is raised. Doesn't that count for something? For example their latest missive mentions a woman with cerebral palsy who had their wheelchair damaged by BA. They are campaigning to get BA to rectify the situation. I don't know if they will succeed, but they might?

You could argue there's nothing stopping people from campaigning on that anyway, but they raise more awareness to get more people on board telling BA to stop being such tossers. It's not going to transform BA from a capitalist institution, but it may help her get a wheelchair. Of course you could also argue that there are plenty of other people in similar situations that aren't getting 38d's help, but that's not really the fault of 38d.

Are you sure you're not overanalysing their role here? I've engaged with my MP through their campaigns, even though I know full well he wont' listen. His responses are certainly interesting though. Even though it won't overthrow capitalism, surely it can't hurt?

Auld-bod

Are they pointless?
Marshalling ‘public opinion’ is often a liberal ploy to delay or embarrass the opposition. In the final analysis it will change little or nothing. It is one of the system’s safety valves, while the authorities manufacture consent with a counter ploy, and sometime it can save them from embarrassing disaster (by pointing out their incompetence).

So what's the alternative and how do we persuade people to a better course of action without being seen as curmudgeons?

I've repeatedly tried making similar points to the People's Assembly and their annual pointless feel good march. It gets nowhere and noone listens or takes you seriously. (Sadface).

Also, the SPEW aren't advocating that we should just leave the EU. They are saying get out of a shit institution thats exploitative and undemocratic and cruel and fight capitalism from there. Either way we'll be in the EU or out of it, whatever we might think as anticapitalists.

I'm still not sure why people are so against the SPEW. What was wrong with Militant? Didn't they hate the Labour party at the time? I thought that was a good thing!

Noah Fence

Much as I would have favourite characters in a movie I have some favourite politicians. My absolute favourite is Tory Matthew Parris who seems a thoroughly agreeable chap. He did a 'My Political Hero' show on Radio and chose Emma Goldman which is not a bad effort. Much as I am strongly enamoured of Mr Parris I have to admit that my opinion of Ken Livingstone was greatly elevated on hearing of how, as a 10 year old boy, would regularly drop newts down his sister's blouse.

Matthew Parris is thoroughly agreeable? :O

Ghost Whistler

What was wrong with Militant? Didn't they hate the Labour party at the time? I thought that was a good thing!

Encouraging people to grass up the Poll Tax rioters and denouncing them was not a good thing. Thats all you need to know about 'Militant'. By the way, I've noticed that Martin on Red and Black TV doesn't tend to reply to anyone on his youtube channel or post comments, it's not personal, although you do come across as a troll. I assume you are G.Whistler on youtube, you mentioned his youtube vids on here, on another thread.

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

What was wrong with Militant? Didn't they hate the Labour party at the time? I thought that was a good thing!

Encouraging people to grass up the Poll Tax rioters and denouncing them was not a good thing. Thats all you need to know about 'Militant'. By the way, I've noticed that Martin on Red and Black TV doesn't tend to reply to anyone on his youtube channel or post comments, it's not personal, although you do come across as a troll. I assume you are G.Whistler on youtube, you mentioned his youtube vids on here, on another thread.

Grass up? That's not the impression I've gotten from these guys.They are dead against it, or were. If some of them thought doing that was a good idea they must have been outliers. I don't get this at all. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not trolling at all. I'm asking questions. I don't see the point of posting videos about these issues and refusing to engage at all. How are people supposed to get on board if you aren't prepared to back up what you're saying?

For example their latest missive mentions a woman with cerebral palsy who had their wheelchair damaged by BA. They are campaigning to get BA to rectify the situation.

So, to be fair, this might be the kind of situation where a petition might work: bringing bad publicity on a big company reliant on a public image on a relatively small issue in which the company can easily rectify.

Are you sure you're not overanalysing their role here?

Maybe, but if our role is to radically transform the nature of society, we should recognize that the methods and demands (which also seem to include "democracy") of groups like 38d reinforce the capitalist/liberal state narrative. Raise awareness, sign petitions, lobby the government - see the system works, all we need is people power!

At best, it fundamentally ignores the class basis of society and draws people into reformism. At worst, it's a relief valve, drawing people away from more militant, effective, and confrontation forms of action.

Ghost Whistler

Noah Fence

Much as I would have favourite characters in a movie I have some favourite politicians. My absolute favourite is Tory Matthew Parris who seems a thoroughly agreeable chap. He did a 'My Political Hero' show on Radio and chose Emma Goldman which is not a bad effort. Much as I am strongly enamoured of Mr Parris I have to admit that my opinion of Ken Livingstone was greatly elevated on hearing of how, as a 10 year old boy, would regularly drop newts down his sister's blouse.

Matthew Parris is thoroughly agreeable? :O

He certainly seems that way. I don't me that I agree with him, of course not, but his nature seems agreeable but then I'm not in the least anti tory, nor for that matter am I anti Labour. I am anti capital. To be against any particular party carries the implication that you are pro another one. As an anarchist, taking an anti tory position is pretty fucking daft.

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

What was wrong with Militant? Didn't they hate the Labour party at the time? I thought that was a good thing!

Encouraging people to grass up the Poll Tax rioters and denouncing them was not a good thing. Thats all you need to know about 'Militant'. By the way, I've noticed that Martin on Red and Black TV doesn't tend to reply to anyone on his youtube channel or post comments, it's not personal, although you do come across as a troll. I assume you are G.Whistler on youtube, you mentioned his youtube vids on here, on another thread.

Grass up? That's not the impression I've gotten from these guys.They are dead against it, or were. If some of them thought doing that was a good idea they must have been outliers. I don't get this at all. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not trolling at all. I'm asking questions. I don't see the point of posting videos about these issues and refusing to engage at all. How are people supposed to get on board if you aren't prepared to back up what you're saying?

It's well known on the Libertarian Left and in the Anarchist movement that people in Militant denounced the Poll Tax rioters and encouraged people to report them to the authorities. Tommy Sheridan is one of them. Heres an extract from this site on Militant, aswell as the SWP and the Poll Tax Riots:

The final score on the day was up to 500 police officers injured (with more than 60 hospitalised), 50 plus cars damaged, 394 shops and offices attacked (and many looted), several hundred demonstrators, 391 people arrested (and more in the subsequent weeks) and a total of 1900 crimes reported. Predictably, all newspapers, all media commentators, all politicians were united in their utter condemnation. From the ’DaiIy Mail' to the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, there was a torrent of outrage and disgust directed at the events that rocked central London. But we see what happened on that day differently from all the political professionals who need us far more than we need them. We see the Battle of Trafalgar Square as a positive and constructive contribution to the struggle against the Poll Tax in particular and the ongoing class war in general.

For a start, if there had been no riot then the demonstration would have got no more than a few lines in the papers and a brief mention on the telly. This is the reality imposed upon us because the media is controlled by the ruling class. This is not absolute totalitarian control - such a policy, at the moment, would be counter-productive. It is a subtle and sophisticated policy that allows ‘World In Action’ and Paul Foot in the 'Daily Mirror to give the illusion of freedom of information - but still maintains a tight grip. Remember the Glasgow demonstration against the Poll Tax in April 1989? Over 20,000 people were on it, a massive display of defiance that was quietly censored.

But the riot was too big to be ignored — and they hoped to smear the anti-Poll Tax movement as well. So the demonstration and subsequent riot were spread across all front pages, on all news bulletins: nobody could now say that they did not know that there was enormous and powerful opposition to the Poll Tax. And this, of course, can only help to build mass non-payment of the Poll Tax. All the isolated, worried and frightened people around the country will have taken great heart from the undeniable fact that they’re not alone in their hatred of the Poll Tax and their desire to smash it into the ground.

But Militant Tendency declared that the riot would "alienate" people from the anti-Poll Tax movement. Militant obviously don’t believe their own propaganda. The struggle against the Poll Tax is not a matter of individual conscience or studied moralism. The rioting did not alienate l millions of working class people whose opposition to the Poll Tax is based on class interests: in plain language, less money in the pocket and even fewer needed services added to the total insult of being asked to pay the same as a millionaire. That opposition is not going to waver because of the rioting - it is going to be encouraged and stimulated even further. This is not mere rhetoric: on the day after the Battle of Trafalgar Square, a local anti-Poll Tax stall had even more people coming up wanting to join the struggle...and only two people actually bothered to mention the violence - and both of them thought that it was good! This is after the total onslaught by the media and all politicians on the riot and everyone who was involved in it.

Of course, the rioting probably alienated a few sympathetic politicians, priests and bureaucrats. People like ’Gorgeous’ George Galloway, Labour MP and ex-boss of ’radical' charity War On Want. Such individuals can only see the working class as helpless, passive, pathetic victims. We need their support like we need a hole in the head. lI the Poll Tax is going to be defeated, it is going to be defeated by mass class action and mass class action alone. And such actions will inevitably come into conflict with the state and all its agencies. By mass class action, we mean struggle on all fronts: community and workplace organised non-payment and resistance to measures taken against non-payers and open displays of defiance on the streets. Does the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation (and, by implication, Militant Tendency) really think that the state is going to sit back and watch mass non-payment of the Poll Tax? Of course not! The state attempted to firstly intimidate and then criminalise the anti-Poll Tax movement on Saturday 31st March. Unlike Militant and their friends, we are under no illusions about the state.

One of the main illusions about the state was voiced by the visibly shaken Home Secretary, David Waddington, who declared: "We live in a democracy". This is open to question. It is certainly the cry of all politicians plus friends in the papers every time we do something more than actually ticking a box once every five years or so. But in reality there is very little genuine democracy in this country, nor anywhere else in this world. Parliamentary democracy is simply the most efficient and effective form of rule for the ruling class at this moment in time. In the past it has been absolutist monarchy and in the future it might be military dictatorship. But real power has always remained in the hands of the tiny elite who control the economy and the state. These people can never be voted out because they never stand for election.

A theory behind this practice was expressed by Sir Ian Gilmour, a Tory MP: "For Conservatives, democracy is a means to an end and not an end in itself...And if it is leading to an end that is undesirable or inconsistent with itself, then there is a theoretical case for ending it". Such a case was made by Andrew Bonar Law, at the time leader of the Conservative Party and later Prime Minister, in 1912: "There are things stronger than parliamentary majorities". Bonar Law was speaking during a period of intense class struggle in this country and in Ireland: the power of the ruling class was being threatened.

The most important function of parliamentary democracy is to disempower the working class. It makes us passive units that have the right to one tick once every few years. It ensures that we have no real power, that we are nothing more than cogs in the machinery of capitalism, unable to have anything more than extremely limited control over our own destinies. And it creates the illusion of choice where there is really no choice at all. Against parliamentary democracy, we uphold the genuine democracy that gives all of us real power to determine the present and the future. This democracy is directly opposed to the farce of parliamentary democracy and the self-seeking careerism of politicians (whether left, right, centre or supposedly revolutionary). It is the democracy of workers and community councils, mass assemblies to organise the running of human society for the benefit of all, not just the privileged few.

It is for these reasons that we don’t give a damn about parliamentary democracy, that we actively seek to "negate democracy" in the words of Neil Kinnock. We do not believe in wasting our time and effort fighting on their terrain of parliamentary democracy. This can only be a dead-end. We do not believe in encouraging any illusions that society can be changed through parliament or that parliament is in any way responsive to our needs and desires. It isn’t and never will be. Parliamentary democracy is a tool of the ruling class and must be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

On Saturday 31st March democracy came to the streets of central London. Thousands of working class people expressed their opinions about the Poll Tax, the police and a multitude of other things. But when this expression became more than token, people found themselves not only against the state but the state in waiting: Militant Tendency. This organisation is one of the leading left-wing parties (although it denies that it is a party).

The politics of Militant are simple - take over the Labour Party and trade unions and then legislate socialism. This means that Militant are utterly obsessed by being ’respectable' as they base their ideology on bourgeois social democracy. So they support strikes — but only as long as they stay inside the framework of official union limits. And they support campaigns — as long as demands are made on the Labour Party.

Already, Militant are trying to use the Poll Tax to regain their dwindling influence within the Labour Party: "The biggest demonstration in Neil Kinnock’s Islwyn constituency since the miners’ strike took place last Friday (23rd March). lt was against the expulsion of Marie Welsh and Denis English from the Labour Party for fighting the Poll Tax", (’Militant', 30th March). The struggle against the Poll Tax offers many opportunities for the working class, after years of defeat and demoralisation — but organisations such as Militant will only attempt to stifle this potential into channels of respectable bourgeois politics. On 22nd March the Labour Party won a by—election in the Mid—Staffs constituency, turning a Tory majority of 14,654 into a Labour majority of 9,449. ’Militant’ hailed this as a victory and declared: "It was the (anti—Poll Tax) Federation’s campaigning that ensured Labour this seat" (30th March). But what was not mentioned was the fact that the new Labour MP is a personal friend of Neil Kinnock, shares his reactionary views and has probably paid all her Poll Tax bill in one instalment!

Instead of trying to help build a mass movement that can defeat the Poll Tax and challenge capitalism, Militant work hard to clean up the extremely tarnished image of the Labour Party and get it working class support. In ’Militant’ (30th March) it was declared: "The lives of the mass of people now suffering under the Tories can only be transformed by a Labour government which takes the levers of economic power out of the hands of the capitalist millionaires". This is political analysis straight from the primary school: first, the illusion that the Labour Party can I somehow become ’revolutionary' and, secondly, the illusion that such changes would be meekly allowed by the state and the bosses. But Militant are not alone in these positions - the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), although sounding slightly more radical (they didn't threaten to grass people to the police for a start), share the same essential politics. In a recent issue of their paper, ’Socialist Worker' (12th May), this was written: "Anti-Poll Tax campaigners in Haringey found overwhelming opposition to the Poll Tax when they went round with petitions, but time and again found they had to argue hard to convince working class people it was worth voting".

Yet again, the working class outflanks the so-called ’revolutionary’ left! It is worth remembering that the Party that both Militant and the SWP work so hard for is the same Party whose shadow Home Secretary stated after the Battle of Trafalgar Square: "l hope there've been a substantial number of arrests, I hope the people responsible for the violence will be convicted and awarded very severe sentences" (Roy Hattersley, 31st March). Interestingly, Hattersley’s words echo the words of supposedly left-wing Labour MP Eric Heffer who said after the Toxteth riots in 1981: "rioters and looters must be punished with all due severity".

What unites politicians from Hattersley to the SWP is the belief that the working class are unable to suss and sort things out for themselves. All authoritarian socialist organisations (whether left or right) believe that social change can only come through the Party: the Party is the leadership of the working class and always knows best. In the words of Leon Trotsky: "The Party in the last analysis is always right, because the Party is the sole historical instrument given to the proletariat for the solution of its basic problem". (What do you do when there’s more than one Party claiming to be the sole historical instrument - toss a coin? And who "gave" the proletariat this present - sounds vaguely religious). Such an attitude as Trotsky's leads firstly to Kronstadt, where thousands of rebellious workers were murdered by the Bolshevik dictatorship and then to Stalinism. Genuine human liberation can only come through self-activity, self-organisation and democratic debate within the working class. These parties are a threat to the anti-Poll Tax movement and will only sabotage, confuse and demoralise this enormous struggle. As millions of working class people defy the intimidation of the state and the lies of the media, the best they can come up with is "It’s time the TUC backed the action" (’Socialist Worker`, 31st March). The anti-Poll Tax struggle has been organised against the TUC and the Labour Party - and has been massively successful considering all the problems and obstacles that it has faced. This just shows our potential, a potential that can only be undermined and diverted by these organisations.

Trafalgar Square showed what was possible. The 200,000 people on the demonstration showed the depth of anger against the Poll Tax and the level of local organisation. It also showed that people were not prepared to take shit lying down and were able to organise resistance without leaders or parties. But we shouldn’t get too carried away by Trafalgar Square - there were many problems on the actual day and the struggle against the Poll Tax is much much more than just one riot. Too many people behaved stupidly and indiscriminately. Too many people were unnecessarily hurt by bricks from the back. Too many people were scared and frightened by this explosion of class anger. These problems and more have got to be acknowledged and sorted out ready for the next time. Because there will be a next time - the struggle against the Poll Tax (for a start!) is not going to disappear, although it will go up and down. The class war will certainly continue! The fight has got to be maintained and intensified - from leaflets through peopIe’s letterboxes to mass demonstrations on the streets to flyposting every available wall to talking down the Iaunderette to stopping the bailiffs to striking at work to...taking on the state and bosses, extending our struggles so that they’re not separated and defeated, unifying to fight the common enemy. they’re not separated and defeated, unifying to fight the common enemy.

The battle against the Poll Tax is much more than just the Poll Tax - and more than just the Tories. It's about our standard of living. It's about how we feel at work, at home and on the streets. It’s about our lives under capitalism. The Battle of Trafalgar Square showed both the potential and the problems of working class struggle. It showed working class anger and working class mutual aid. It showed the sabotage of the left parties and the stupidity of a few idiots. We have all got to learn and build from Trafalgar Square so that we can reach the day where there is no need to batter people into unconsciousness. Let’s get organised.

Text originally from a pamphlet entitled “Poll Tax Riot” published by ACAB press. OCRed by Linda Towlson for libcom.org

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

What was wrong with Militant? Didn't they hate the Labour party at the time? I thought that was a good thing!

Encouraging people to grass up the Poll Tax rioters and denouncing them was not a good thing. Thats all you need to know about 'Militant'. By the way, I've noticed that Martin on Red and Black TV doesn't tend to reply to anyone on his youtube channel or post comments, it's not personal, although you do come across as a troll. I assume you are G.Whistler on youtube, you mentioned his youtube vids on here, on another thread.

Grass up? That's not the impression I've gotten from these guys.They are dead against it, or were. If some of them thought doing that was a good idea they must have been outliers. I don't get this at all. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not trolling at all. I'm asking questions. I don't see the point of posting videos about these issues and refusing to engage at all. How are people supposed to get on board if you aren't prepared to back up what you're saying?

An extract from a Wildcat review of Poll Tax Rebellion by Danny Burns (1993):

This weakness is expressed most clearly where he describes the comments made by Tommy Sheridan (Chair of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation) immediately after Trafalgar Square as "defensive" (pg 104). In this statement Sheridan denounced the rioters. The next day he and Steve Nally were to say that they intended to "name names" and "root out the trouble-makers". This was to earn them the well-deserved epithets of "Nally the Nark" and "Shop'Em Sheridan". There was nothing defensive about the remarks made by these gentlemen. They indicated a real desire go on the offensive... against the proletariat! In a similar vein he describes the All-Britain Federation's "People's March Against the Poll Tax" as an "inadequate response" (pg 116). This consisted of a few dozen Militant supporters (OK, one or two weren't) in expensive track suits marching to London from various parts of the country. It was Militant's response to widespread demands for more demos in London after Trafalgar Square. To call it "inadequate" is to mask the fact that it was an attempt to demobilise the movement.

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

What was wrong with Militant? Didn't they hate the Labour party at the time? I thought that was a good thing!

Encouraging people to grass up the Poll Tax rioters and denouncing them was not a good thing. Thats all you need to know about 'Militant'. By the way, I've noticed that Martin on Red and Black TV doesn't tend to reply to anyone on his youtube channel or post comments, it's not personal, although you do come across as a troll. I assume you are G.Whistler on youtube, you mentioned his youtube vids on here, on another thread.

Grass up? That's not the impression I've gotten from these guys.They are dead against it, or were. If some of them thought doing that was a good idea they must have been outliers. I don't get this at all. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not trolling at all. I'm asking questions. I don't see the point of posting videos about these issues and refusing to engage at all. How are people supposed to get on board if you aren't prepared to back up what you're saying?

And what d'ya know, you can even find on youtube, footage of Tommy Sheridan condemning the rioters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDlqF6AE6dk

red and black riot

[It's well known on the Libertarian Left and in the Anarchist movement that people in Militant denounced the Poll Tax rioters and encouraged people to report them to the authorities. Tommy Sheridan is one of them. Heres an extract from this site on Militant, aswell as the SWP and the Poll Tax Riots:

The final score on the day was up to 500 police officers injured (with more than 60 hospitalised), 50 plus cars damaged, 394 shops and offices attacked (and many looted), several hundred demonstrators, 391 people arrested (and more in the subsequent weeks) and a total of 1900 crimes reported. Predictably, all newspapers, all media commentators, all politicians were united in their utter condemnation. From the ’DaiIy Mail' to the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, there was a torrent of outrage and disgust directed at the events that rocked central London. But we see what happened on that day differently from all the political professionals who need us far more than we need them. We see the Battle of Trafalgar Square as a positive and constructive contribution to the struggle against the Poll Tax in particular and the ongoing class war in general.

Do you have a source for the Militant position you describe?

For a start, if there had been no riot then the demonstration would have got no more than a few lines in the papers and a brief mention on the telly. This is the reality imposed upon us because the media is controlled by the ruling class. This is not absolute totalitarian control - such a policy, at the moment, would be counter-productive. It is a subtle and sophisticated policy that allows ‘World In Action’ and Paul Foot in the 'Daily Mirror to give the illusion of freedom of information - but still maintains a tight grip. Remember the Glasgow demonstration against the Poll Tax in April 1989? Over 20,000 people were on it, a massive display of defiance that was quietly censored.

So the answer is to hospitalise people?

Text originally from a pamphlet entitled “Poll Tax Riot” published by ACAB press. OCRed by Linda Towlson for libcom.org

And is ther eanything to verify that pamphlet's claims?

Noah Fence

Ghost Whistler

Noah Fence

Much as I would have favourite characters in a movie I have some favourite politicians. My absolute favourite is Tory Matthew Parris who seems a thoroughly agreeable chap. He did a 'My Political Hero' show on Radio and chose Emma Goldman which is not a bad effort. Much as I am strongly enamoured of Mr Parris I have to admit that my opinion of Ken Livingstone was greatly elevated on hearing of how, as a 10 year old boy, would regularly drop newts down his sister's blouse.

Matthew Parris is thoroughly agreeable? :O

He certainly seems that way. I don't me that I agree with him, of course not, but his nature seems agreeable but then I'm not in the least anti tory, nor for that matter am I anti Labour. I am anti capital. To be against any particular party carries the implication that you are pro another one. As an anarchist, taking an anti tory position is pretty fucking daft.

I don't understand how anyone can not be anti-tory. I simply cannot register that at all. These people, regardless of their agency toward capital, are fucking inhuman.

Chilli Sauce

For example their latest missive mentions a woman with cerebral palsy who had their wheelchair damaged by BA. They are campaigning to get BA to rectify the situation.

So, to be fair, this might be the kind of situation where a petition might work: bringing bad publicity on a big company reliant on a public image on a relatively small issue in which the company can easily rectify.

Are you sure you're not overanalysing their role here?

Maybe, but if our role is to radically transform the nature of society, we should recognize that the methods and demands (which also seem to include "democracy") of groups like 38d reinforce the capitalist/liberal state narrative. Raise awareness, sign petitions, lobby the government - see the system works, all we need is people power!

At best, it fundamentally ignores the class basis of society and draws people into reformism. At worst, it's a relief valve, drawing people away from more militant, effective, and confrontation forms of action.

I don't even think 38d is anti-capitalist. They just make the claim they are a grassroots left leaning organisation campainging about whatever they choose to. I'm not advocating them as a means to fight capital. If they are raising awareness about good causes, what is the harm? Are you sure you are not setting them up to be something they've never claimed to be?

red and black riot

And what d'ya know, you can even find on youtube, footage of Tommy Sheridan condemning the rioters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDlqF6AE6dk

I don't know how to process this.

I find violence and bullying abhorrent, that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism.

So I don't remember how much of an effect this had on the poll tax ultimately, but did it swell the ranks of class war? The people that clearly delight in violence.

that's the difference for me. I won't shed a tear if a bank gets smashed up, but if ordinary working people in there (not perhaps the fred goodwins or bob diamonds of the world) are regarded as colleteral damage then I have to wonder what the hell's going on.

why did that guy even bother doing the interview? how did he think he was going to look when his own newspaper clearly glorifies violence? Like Ian Bone here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vciXxY5ADoA

And i cant' stand 'wossy', i think he's an arrogant c**t.

But this? How does this help?

I'm sorry I don't get this at all. Maybe I'm too much of a bleeding heart liberal.

You are clearly a very sectarian individual and one who espouses Trotskyism on the internet. You are obviously a fucking troll, on here and on youtube who promotes counter-revolutionary beliefs. Admins- why the fuck are you allowing this?

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

And what d'ya know, you can even find on youtube, footage of Tommy Sheridan condemning the rioters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDlqF6AE6dk

I don't know how to process this.

I find violence and bullying abhorrent, that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism.

So I don't remember how much of an effect this had on the poll tax ultimately, but did it swell the ranks of class war? The people that clearly delight in violence.

that's the difference for me. I won't shed a tear if a bank gets smashed up, but if ordinary working people in there (not perhaps the fred goodwins or bob diamonds of the world) are regarded as colleteral damage then I have to wonder what the hell's going on.

why did that guy even bother doing the interview? how did he think he was going to look when his own newspaper clearly glorifies violence? Like Ian Bone here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vciXxY5ADoA

And i cant' stand 'wossy', i think he's an arrogant c**t.

But this? How does this help?

I'm sorry I don't get this at all. Maybe I'm too much of a bleeding heart liberal.

Did you even watch the vid I posted? Are you saying that Class War and the Poll Tax rioters are bullies rather than the Police? Are you for real?

things i personal remember SPEW doing locally: stacking a meeting at any anti cuts group to force a steering committee, then abandoning the group to stand in elections; turning up to demos other people organised with megaphones and or stalls trying to make it look like it was all them; turning up meetings organised by other people just to recite the party line at length anytime they had a chance to speak; discourager workers from taking action such as work to rule because it would be difficult to organises through the union.

there is also this http://screamingvioletsmag.co.uk/testimony-on-sexual-assault-in-the-socialist-party-2/

Ghost Whistler, to think politically we have to try and scratch below the surface of things. Political opponents can often be pleasant people taken as individuals. They can be sincere and believe their motives are good, for the best, etc.

Militant/Socialist Party is a Trotskyist group who infiltrated the Labour Party and were eventually booted out. I was living in Coventry when Dave Nellist was MP for Coventry South East. He was a well-liked bloke, who idealistically only kept that part of his salary equivalent to the pay of a skilled worker, and donated the rest to Militant. It did not stop him being a representative of a vicious sectarian mob, who imagine themselves to be the leadership of the working class and who will lie their heads off, if it suits their purpose. Trots in all guises, are parasites on the working class.

red and black riot

You are clearly a very sectarian individual and one who espouses Trotskyism on the internet. You are obviously a fucking troll, on here and on youtube who promotes counter-revolutionary beliefs. Admins- why the fuck are you allowing this?

I don't think I'm sectarian at all. I don't even know how you can make that claim.

Where have I ever espoused Trotskyism? I've asked before what Trotskyism is and noone has actually answered.

What counter revolutionary beliefs have I advocated?

You've made all these claims about me and where is your evidence? Or is it ok to just attack people you don't like? Is that your idea of working class solidarity? In that Tommy Sheridan clip you have a shot of people looting a guitar shop; I don't hear anyone saying that working class people shouldn't be stealing from their own. I hear people calling for violence for violence' sake.

red and black riot

Did you even watch the vid I posted? Are you saying that Class War and the Poll Tax rioters are bullies rather than the Police? Are you for real?

Yes I did, and I don't know what to think. Can you not respect that, or would you like to continue attacking me? Perhaps I should be beaten up as well.

I didn't say tax rioters were bullies, that's you putting words into my mouth. Don't ever do that.

I don't understand how anyone can not be anti-tory. I simply cannot register that at all. These people, regardless of their agency toward capital, are fucking inhuman.

That is, I'm afraid, a very hollow statement. By the time the information about these people gets to you it has been spun from all sides, de-contextualised, edited and then finally blasted at you through a media filter. We know very little of the real people that they are. Capital has its requirements and these people fulfill them just as we do. We are the drones that uphold the whole disgusting arrangement of capitalism. Sure, as the ruling class they are our enemy in exactly the same way as labour are but they are human beings just like you and me navigating our way through a fucked up world. It is their position that we should be opposed to, not their personalities. Anybody with any experience of life knows that there are pleasant decent people in all walks of life just as their are rotten bastards. That includes the Tories, Labour, the Women's institute, your local football team and of course, Libcom.
So what do you really know about say, Mathew Parris and Jeremy Corbyn as people? Very little is my guess. I can tell you that they have both been staunch supporters of capitalism for decades and continue to be so. Isn't that what really matters? In the bigger picture capitalism isn't a partisan entity. It's a machine made of various components. Our job as anarchists is to dismantle this machine, not set ourselves up as arbiters of what constitutes a human or inhuman person.

radicalgraffiti

things i personal remember SPEW doing locally: stacking a meeting at any anti cuts group to force a steering committee, then abandoning the group to stand in elections; turning up to demos other people organised with megaphones and or stalls trying to make it look like it was all them; turning up meetings organised by other people just to recite the party line at length anytime they had a chance to speak; discourager workers from taking action such as work to rule because it would be difficult to organises through the union.

This is not my experience. The people i've met aren't like this.

I don't know how to relate to those experiences you describe, I'm not trying to deny them. I just don't understand what you'd have me say or do?

Auld-bod

Ghost Whistler, to think politically we have to try and scratch below the surface of things. Political opponents can often be pleasant people taken as individuals. They can be sincere and believe their motives are good, for the best, etc.

Militant/Socialist Party is a Trotskyist group who infiltrated the Labour Party and were eventually booted out. I was living in Coventry when Dave Nellist was MP for Coventry South East. He was a well-liked bloke, who idealistically only kept that part of his salary equivalent to the pay of a skilled worker, and donated the rest to Militant. It did not stop him being a representative of a vicious sectarian mob, who imagine themselves to be the leadership of the working class and who will lie their heads off, if it suits their purpose. Trots in all guises, are parasites on the working class.

I don't know what trotskyism is or means. I'm hoping someone can explain this because i keep hearing this.

Again, i'm not denying this experience, but it's not representative of what i've seen.

So what do I do? Go the people i've met who've been friendly to me and tell them that someone on the internet told me their experience of you is really negative? How will that work?

Ghost Whistler, if you wish to know what Trotskyism is, you should read the source. He is very plausible. Then read about his and his followers practice using a number of sources. A problem you will encounter is the various groupings claiming the description, are fragmented and dislike each other, though there are similarities, arrogance being one.

I lifted the quote from ‘Socialist Standard’ (note: the SPGB are not Trots)

Trotsky was open about the historic role of leadership, ‘The Party’ and the discipline needed by party members.

‘Trotsky answered at the Bolshevik party congress in 1924
‘Comrades, none of us wants to be or can be right against the party. In the last analysis, the party is always right, because the party is the sole historical instrument that the working class possesses for the solution of its fundamental tasks. I have already said that nothing would be simpler than to say before the party that all these criticisms, all these declarations, warnings, and protests – all were mistaken from the beginning to end. I cannot say so, however, comrades, because I do not think it. I know that no one can be right against the party. It is only possible to be right with the party and through it since history has not created any other way to determine the correct position’ and ‘We can only be right with and by the Party, for history has provided no other way of being in the right’.

I believe George Orwell would describe this nonsense as ‘doublethink’ in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Noah Fence

Our job as anarchists is to dismantle this machine, not set ourselves up as arbiters of what constitutes a human or inhuman person.

I understand what you are saying. But surely if you are advocating a nuanced approach then you must admit that Corbyn is nowhere near as vicious as any Tory. To say both he and Matthew Parris or whoever are just staunch capitalists is surely missing the nuance you point out i lack.

Auld-bod

I lifted the quote from ‘Socialist Standard’ (note: the SPGB are not Trots)

Trotsky was open about the historic role of leadership, ‘The Party’ and the discipline needed by party members.

‘Trotsky answered at the Bolshevik party congress in 1924
‘Comrades, none of us wants to be or can be right against the party. In the last analysis, the party is always right, because the party is the sole historical instrument that the working class possesses for the solution of its fundamental tasks. I have already said that nothing would be simpler than to say before the party that all these criticisms, all these declarations, warnings, and protests – all were mistaken from the beginning to end. I cannot say so, however, comrades, because I do not think it. I know that no one can be right against the party. It is only possible to be right with the party and through it since history has not created any other way to determine the correct position’ and ‘We can only be right with and by the Party, for history has provided no other way of being in the right’.

I believe George Orwell would describe this nonsense as ‘doublethink’ in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

So he's saying that the party is always right and its critics are thus always wrong?

So when people say the SWEP are trots they are making an accusation of authoritarianism?

You know guys as interesting as this is, it might be worth splitting off the Trot talk to its own thread.

I've asked before what Trotskyism is and noone has actually answered.

SPEW seems rather lapse in their education of its members if you require an explanation about what Trotskyism is from this website. I'm sure they have their own study guide and recommended reading list if they no longer conduct any educational classes at branch level.

There are a few political ideas that define Trotskyism as a specific political school of thought. And other elements that aren't too unique.

There is Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, a phrase he lifted from Marx but put his very own spin upon. The basic points of this theory rest on the assumption that power could be held by socialists in Russia long enough to enable the workers of the more advanced Western countries, helped, of course, by their Russian comrades, to introduce socialism. Then the material backwardness of Russia could be overcome through the united efforts of a socialist Europe.
None of the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, accepted this view until after the seizure of power in October, 1917. Trotsky in fact only joined the Bolsheviks in August of that year. This idea was posited as an alternative to the traditional stageism theory. Trotsky fell from grace because his theory of Permanent Revolution and his consequent insistence on continued revolutionary agitation abroad would have cut off all aid from the West, and so made any attempt at industrial development more difficult in Russia.

The next feature of Trotskyism is his definition of the nature of the Soviet Union. He viewed Russia under Stalin as a workers state, not a perfect one, certainly, but a workers state nevertheless, was set out in his book The Revolution Betrayed first published in 1936. This is the origin of the Trotskyist dogma that Russia is a "degenerate workers state" in which a bureaucracy had usurped political power from the working class but without changing the social basis (nationalisation and planning). Trotsky was only able to sustain his view by making the completely non-Marxist assumption that capitalist distribution relations (the privileges of the Stalinist bureaucracy) could exist on the basis of socialist production relations. Marx, by contrast, had concluded, from a study of past and present societies, that the mode of distribution was entirely determined by the mode of production. Thus, the existence of privileged distribution relations in Russia should itself have been sufficient proof that Russia had nothing to do with socialism. Trotsky rejected the view that Russia was state capitalist on the grounds of an absence of a private capitalist class, of private shareholders and bondholders who could inherit and bequeath their property. He failed to see that what made Russia capitalist was the existence of wage-labour and capital accumulation not the nature and mode of recruitment of its ruling class. Trotsky entirely identified capitalism with private capitalism and so concluded that society would cease to be capitalist once the private capitalist class had been expropriated. This meant that, in contrast to Lenin who mistakenly saw state capitalism as a necessary step towards socialism, Trotsky committed the different mistake of seeing state capitalism as the negation of capitalism. For Trotsky, economic democracy was not an issue. It played no role in determining the socialist nature of a society. Rather state ownership did. Thus he did not question one-man management in the workplace nor the capitalist social relationships it generated.Trotsky's view that Russia under Stalin was still some sort of "Workers State" was the start of all the splits and splinters in the 4th International because those who had eyes could see the absurdity of that position. Trotsky's "opposition" in no way presented any real alternative to Stalinism. Indeed, Stalinism simply took over and applied Trotsky's demands for increased industrialisation (militarisation of labour). At no time did Trotsky question the fundamental social relationships within Soviet society. He simply wished the ruling elite to apply different policies while allowing him more space and freedom within the party structures.

Trotskyist theory and practice are summed up in the opening sentence of the manifesto the Fourth International adopted at its foundation in 1938. Called The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, and drafted by Trotsky himself, it begins with the declaration: "The world political situation is chiefly characterised by the historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat". This tendency to reduce everything to a question of the right leadership (Trotsky once wrote a pamphlet on the Paris Commune in which he explained its failure by the absence of a Bolshevik Party there) reminds us that Trotskyists are 101% Leninist believers in the vanguard party. They believe that workers by their own efforts are incapable of emancipating themselves and so must be led by an enlightened minority of professional revolutionaries. Thus, they fall under the general criticism of Leninism and indeed of all theories which proclaim that workers need leaders. “Uneven consciousness” among workers necessitates the need for leaders, and for an organisation that can bring it together with non-socialist workers in the name of immediate ends, be those organisations trade unions, or workers' councils. No doubt many Trotskyists have their counter-case rehearsed when Mahkno and Kronsdadt are raised but what about Trotsky's response to the opposition within the Bolsheviks? Isaac Deutscher notes in The Prophet Unarmed his reaction to the repression of Miasnikov's Workers' Group
[Trotsky] "did not protest when their adherents were thrown into prison . . . Nor was he inclined to countenance industrial unrest . . . Nor was he at all eager to support the demand for Soviet democracy in the extreme form in which the Workers' Opposition and its splinter groups [like the Workers' Group] had raised it."
Tony Cliff echoes that when it was the turn of the Workers Group and Workers Truth, Trotsky:-
"did not condemn their persecution" and he "did not support their incitement of workers to industrial unrest." Moreover, "Nor was Trotsky ready to support the demand for workers' democracy in the extreme form to which the Workers Group and Workers Truth raised it." Trotsky did not call for workers' democracy in any meaningful form.

Another important point of Trotskyism was the concept of "transitional demands" , i.e. advocating reforms known not to work, in order to draw workers into “communist” ranks through their inevitable disappointment . The manifesto contained a whole list of reform demands which was called "the transitional programme". Trotsky urges that transitional demands should include the call for the expropriation of various groups of capitalists- sometimes translated in modern terms into the nationalisation of various sectors [demands for the nationalisation of the 200 big companies and banks by the Militant Tendency during the 70s and 80s] - under the control and management of the workers. Transitional demands should include opposition to imperialist war. Such demands intend to challenge the capitalist class's right to rule. By fighting for these "transitional" demands, in the opinion of the Trotskyists, the workers will come to realise that capitalism cannot meet their needs, and they will then embrace the Fourth International. This reform programme was said to be different from those of openly reformist parties like Labour in Britain in that Trotskyists claimed to be under no illusion that the reforms demanded could be achieved within the framework of capitalism. They were posed as bait by the vanguard party to get workers to struggle for them, on the theory that the workers would learn in the course of the struggle that these demands could not be achieved within capitalism and so would come to struggle (under the leadership of the vanguard party) to abolish capitalism. One unfortunate side-effect is that some members believed their own propaganda and are victims of it by beginning to think these immediate demands are possible.

Political entryism began in the 30s when Trotskyists joined the ILP and it served as a template for infiltrating the Labour Party and the trade unions but the salient fact remained that they were incapable of taking the Labour Party or the trade unions further than the bulk of the membership were willing to tolerate. Control of local councils proved disastrous and simply resulted councillors being disbarred and declared bankrupt and central government sending in the administrators to take control of the councils. They couldn't stop the cuts then so why repeat mistakes?

That lengthy reply to your question is a brief description of what is Trotskyism and you can read much more detail in the informative Anarchist FAQ

Ghost Whistler

Noah Fence

Our job as anarchists is to dismantle this machine, not set ourselves up as arbiters of what constitutes a human or inhuman person.

I understand what you are saying. But surely if you are advocating a nuanced approach then you must admit that Corbyn is nowhere near as vicious as any Tory. To say both he and Matthew Parris or whoever are just staunch capitalists is surely missing the nuance you point out i lack.

Ok then GW, try these for size.

In 1984 when I was a drug addicted teenager, vulnerable in some awful accommodation, physically and mentally bankrupt I somehow go talking to a Tory councillor who expressed extreme concern for my well being and invited me, a criminal, to his family home and along with his wife prepared me a big vegetarian meal and spent the evening trying to boost my spirits. He then asked me if there was anything he could do to help me. Being so negative I refused his help but still he slipped me a tenner on my way out of the door.
15 years later the house I visited was up for sale, I went to look at it and he was still living there! We decided we wanted to buy the house but hadn't sold ours. When I explained who I was he was choked up to see me healthy and also agreed to wait for as long as it took for us to sell as he really wanted us to have the house.
So, a true story, that has fuck all to do with him being a tory and everything to do with him being a caring generous individual. Do you still assert that all Tories are inhuman. Sure, it was a long time ago but this was the precise time that the Tories were destroying the mining communities. Anyhow, if this isn't enough I have another story from only around 6 months ago of help my son received from current South Suffolk MP James Cartlidge. Details available if you like that once again show a very human side to a Tory.

Noah Fence

Ok then GW, try these for size.

Ok fair enough, but James Cartlidge is a member of a party that is killing people. How many of these people are decent human beings compared to scum such as those in government. Look at the spectacle of IDS walking out laughing half way through a debate on foodbanks while the rest of the government benches were braying like mules. Or Philip Davies talking out an attempt to curtail punitive hospital parking fees etc.

Obviously I'm glad that your son got help, but Carlidge is also someone that has voted to take £30 from ESA claimants pittance, and has voted against increasing benefits for people on long term disability etc.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25414/james_cartlidge/south_suffolk/votes

I don't see the record of a decent human being.

Quite honestly the juxtaposition of opposing views here is very strange: on one hand I'm being told the SWEP are evil incarnate and on the other I'm being told that individual members of a political party are capable of being decent human beings.

Ghost Whistler #367

‘So he's saying that the party is always right and its critics are thus always wrong?’

Yes, this applies to party members, including himself, who had criticisms, by placing the party above these concerns due to the party’s place, as the vanguard of the proletariat. In essence: think what you will - do what the party dictates.

Exactly the mentality which led loyal Bolsheviks to confess to ludicrous crimes during Stalin’s show trials in the 1930s.

In the 1960s a Stalinist I worked with was trying to recruit me, and I was raising certain objections to the CP line. His reply was, “Well these things are better discussed inside the party”. I though “F**k me, nothing changes with these guys”.

Ajjohnstone #369

Excellent post!

Ghost Whistler

Noah Fence

Ok then GW, try these for size.

Ok fair enough, but James Cartlidge is a member of a party that is killing people. How many of these people are decent human beings compared to scum such as those in government. Look at the spectacle of IDS walking out laughing half way through a debate on foodbanks while the rest of the government benches were braying like mules. Or Philip Davies talking out an attempt to curtail punitive hospital parking fees etc.

Obviously I'm glad that your son got help, but Carlidge is also someone that has voted to take £30 from ESA claimants pittance, and has voted against increasing benefits for people on long term disability etc.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25414/james_cartlidge/south_suffolk/votes

I don't see the record of a decent human being.

Quite honestly the juxtaposition of opposing views here is very strange: on one hand I'm being told the SWEP are evil incarnate and on the other I'm being told that individual members of a political party are capable of being decent human beings.

And you think a labour government wouldn't kill people? Get real mate or you ain't gonna get anywhere. I could keep on and get into the minutiae but there's no point. Facts rarely have any impact on prejudice.

radicalgraffiti

there is also this http://screamingvioletsmag.co.uk/testimony-on-sexual-assault-in-the-socialist-party-2/

Ok, I don't know what to say to that. I don't want to be dismissive of issues like this at all, however I don't know what the SWEp themselves say about this nor do i know of any way I can find out. I certainly can't ask them, this is a highly personal issue. I've tried googling but didn't really find anything.

I'm not really sure what to think at all anymore, though being a rape survivor puts that into perspective.

The article makes mention of a split from a left leaning group (CWI?) in Sweden which, from what i can gather, is about a response to anarchist behaviour described, again, as violent.

I'm not per se opposed to violence in the sense that I can fully see the argument that structural violence (smashing up banks for example crudely speaking) might be necessary. But when it is justified, as it was by Class War in that clip, I have a real problem. I have never met Class War, but everything I have seen is just so adversarial it is hard to know how to take them, but they come off as, at best, juvenile. They don't seem to box clever at all, and given the power of the media that just seems suicidal.

Sorry that's how I feel. I guess that's further evidence I'm a troll.

Noah Fence

And you think a labour government wouldn't kill people? Get real mate or you ain't gonna get anywhere. I could keep on and get into the minutiae but there's no point. Facts rarely have any impact on prejudice.

Where on earth did I ever say anything remotely resembling saying Labour wouldn't kill people.

If you think I'm prejudiced then we have nothing else to say to each other. I have not been remotely prejudicial, bigoted, judgemental or rude, but yet again it seems that's ok for me to be treated that way. So much for values.

Noah, I agree with your posts.
It can be very seductive to imagine your political foes as moral degenerates. I remember when all the baddies wore black hats. Life was so much simpler. Unfortunately large numbers of people still believe they have to demonise their enemies and by dehumanising, they have license to inflict barbarous acts with ‘moral’ impunity. This I think applies across the political spectrum. I have my own prejudices.

It is lazy to equate bad politics with bad people - it’s a bit like equating aesthetic beauty with moral integrity, etc.
Possibly Ghost Whistler is just picking up on these irritating conundrums.

EDIT
GW - Class War usually gets little support on this site so you’re pushing at an open door. I don’t think you’re a troll, though by banging on about class war people may think you’re inferring libcom and Class War have similar politics.

But GW, you clearly stated that Labour people aren't as bad as Tory people, the reason you gave is that Tories are responsible for the killing of people. Now you agree that Labour would be responsible for death too. So how come Tories are worse than Labour then? Do you not see the contradiction? This all brings us round to my initial point, namely, that the problem is capitalism itself, not components of it.
Let's say you repeatedly kick me with your right leg and less often with your left. Is my problem your right leg? No, my problem is you! Get it? Focus my attention on your right leg and the rest of you is free to keep up the assault. Ok, a slightly silly analogy but you see what I'm getting at, right?

Anyway, don't take things so personally, I disagree with and am deconstructing your position, not your personality. I may be wrong but I think you're here looking for answers and I'm trying my best to give you some. Really, it's no skin off my nose whether you agree or at least attempt to look at things a different way except for the fact that I care about this stuff and I care about people, like myself, who are puzzled at why things are so fucked. You know full well that I haven't got it in for you and you know my reason for saying that. You're not a victim here unless being told stuff you don't like affords you victim status.

Auld-bod

Noah, I agree with your posts.
It can be very seductive to imagine your political foes as moral degenerates. I remember when all the baddies wore black hats. Life was so much simpler. Unfortunately large numbers of people still believe they have to demonise their enemies and by dehumanising, they have license to inflict barbarous acts with ‘moral’ impunity. This I think applies across the political spectrum. I have my own prejudices.

It is lazy to equate bad politics with bad people - it’s a bit like equating aesthetic beauty with moral integrity, etc.
Possibly Ghost Whistler is just picking up on these irritating conundrums.

EDIT
GW - Class War usually gets little support on this site so you’re pushing at an open door. I don’t think you’re a troll, though by banging on about class war people may think you’re inferring libcom and Class War have similar politics.

Thanks, it's nice to have some support. I get very frustrated by the fact the anti anti Toryism seems to be some kind of anarcho faux pas when to me it's a basic tenet of anarchism that we in no way take sides in the fake battles of supposedly opposing factions of capitals admin department. I think the prejudice has as much to do with rosy complexions and plummy voices as it does policy.

Noah Fence

But GW, you clearly stated that Labour people aren't as bad as Tory people, the reason you gave is that Tories are responsible for the killing of people. Now you agree that Labour would be responsible for death too. So how come Tories are worse than Labour then? Do you not see the contradiction? This all brings us round to my initial point, namely, that the problem is capitalism itself, not components of it.
Let's say you repeatedly kick me with your right leg and less often with your left. Is my problem your right leg? No, my problem is you! Get it? Focus my attention on your right leg and the rest of you is free to keep up the assault. Ok, a slightly silly analogy but you see what I'm getting at, right?

Anyway, don't take things so personally, I disagree with and am deconstructing your position, not your personality. I may be wrong but I think you're here looking for answers and I'm trying my best to give you some. Really, it's no skin off my nose whether you agree or at least attempt to look at things a different way except for the fact that I care about this stuff and I care about people, like myself, who are puzzled at why things are so fucked. You know full well that I haven't got it in for you and you know my reason for saying that. You're not a victim here unless being told stuff you don't like affords you victim status.

I don't think Labour are as bad as the Tories, but that doesn't mean they haven't engineered policies that have killed people. The differences aren't huge, but surely if you're advocating a nuanced response then you must acknowledge this. Take the last election, even though the difference was minor and certainly not anywhere near good enough, at least Labour were offering to axe the Bedroom Tax. The Tories made no such offer. Now you can argue that Labour might not keep that promise, but that would be speculation, no matter how reasonable. It's still more than we got from the Tories.

I wasn't demonising your MP either. I fully accept your story and if your son was helped then that's great since that's what's important. The point I'm making is that your MP is not an example of the kind of caring human being you suggest, If he really cared about people, your son included, then he wouldn't be actively campaigning and voting for policies such as he has. I posted his voting record, it speaks for itself. My comments were based on facts.

I'm not advocating for Labour at all. But if nuance is important then that must apply across the board surely?

Auld-bod

It is lazy to equate bad politics with bad people - it’s a bit like equating aesthetic beauty with moral integrity, etc.
Possibly Ghost Whistler is just picking up on these irritating conundrums.

EDIT
GW - Class War usually gets little support on this site so you’re pushing at an open door. I don’t think you’re a troll, though by banging on about class war people may think you’re inferring libcom and Class War have similar politics.

I agree that it's lazy, but sometimes they ARE bad people, that was my point in posting the MP's voting record. Too many times.

The difference between the Tories and Labour is that the former are products of a feudal system, not just capitalism. That system seems to imbue them with a sense they are born to rule and tell us what to do. That then gets combined with capitalism so you get a double dose of class hatred. I don't think Labour has this quality, certainly not in enough measure to qualify. That isn't to excuse Labour either. Again, I do not support them and have been critical of their conduct elsewhere. After all Labour councillors are among those pushing through the austerity measures crippling communities right now. The high profile case of Carnegie library in London is a perfect example; they've even rejected a plan put forward by the former (hopeuflly not) librarians.

I'm not trying to belabour the point about Class War, but they identify as anarchists so I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, they share a lot of the same ideas. I just don't get them, but I made mention of them because of the video clip about the riots in which they were integral.

Back to the topic at hand.

Is there no merit in at least using the system - ie the referendum - to achieve some movement in the right direction? Either way the result will be in or out. There can' tbe an alternative regardless of who's in charge. Is there no merit at all to a 'hold your nose and vote' (or 'use the system to help get what we want')?

How about these 'facts'.

There are different forces competing within capitalism. The trade union movement created the Labour Party to represent the interests of organised labour. It was seeking to gain influence and power by this means. Over time the Labour Party started treating the unions simply as a source of income and in return helped the union leadership to curb shop floor power by elevating their status and authority, and through legislation to alleviate some of the worst excesses of the economic system. These social democratic reforms helped capitalism to modernise.

The Conservative Party played the game after WWII helping to give the working class a stake in the system by promoting private ownership and consumerism often financed through hire purchase. The competition between the parties was based on, who could run the system better and what goodies were on offer. The organised working class have been largely decimated with the destruction of manufacturing and the introduction of legal restraints. The political parties are only able to tinker with capitalism. If your Trotskyist friends suddenly found themselves in power they would find themselves on the same political treadmill. They equate socialism with state ownership. The form could change, unfortunately the same or worse oppressive system would remain.

EDIT
Use the system to get what we want?
Start a petition? Something stronger - pass a law?
As soon as this law passes both houses and the Queen signs off on it capitalism is officially over and libertarian communism is formally initiated. I’ll vote for that!

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

there is also this http://screamingvioletsmag.co.uk/testimony-on-sexual-assault-in-the-socialist-party-2/

Ok, I don't know what to say to that. I don't want to be dismissive of issues like this at all, however I don't know what the SWEp themselves say about this nor do i know of any way I can find out. I certainly can't ask them, this is a highly personal issue. I've tried googling but didn't really find anything.

I'm not really sure what to think at all anymore, though being a rape survivor puts that into perspective.

The article makes mention of a split from a left leaning group (CWI?) in Sweden which, from what i can gather, is about a response to anarchist behaviour described, again, as violent.

the thing that happened in the Swedish section of the CWI was the covering up of rapes by a prominent member of the party, theres a thread here https://libcom.org/forums/news/triggers-socialist-justice-party-sexual-assault-scandal-26052014 and others else where on other sites.
i'm not sure where you getting the idea it was about anarchists being violent

Back to the EU Referendum:

The Best Reasons to Vote "Leave":

The Financial Times April 18, 2016

Fears over British EU referendum hold back hiring and investment
-Uncertainty chills business -Top London Property hit -European groups delay plans

Sarah Gordon-London

Uncertainty over the outcome of Britain's EU referendum is having a chilling effect on business activity, with companies pulling back on hiring and investment across sectors from real estate to recruitment.
The slowdown is hitting property prices at the high end of the London property market and hiring in financial service last month fell 21 percent against last year.
'[Brexit fears are] having a huge impact on general confidence,' said Lord Davies, a British businessman who chairs several private equity companies. 'What is scary for foreign direct investors and investors generally is the fear of the unknown.'
...French economy minister Emmanuel Macron yesterday say Britain would struggle to regain access to the EU's single market and would lose its negotiating power in talks to protect its ailing steel industry from Chinese rivals. {My note: that's pretty hilarious given Cameron's opposition to any protectionist measures},
His comments followed a warning from German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble, who said Berlin would be a tough negotiator if the UK voted to leave the EU and there would be no easy trade deal between the two countries.
The London property market is already showing signs of a "Brexit effect,"....
Property prices across the UK are still at historic highs, but the growth in central London, traditionally a target of foreign investors, from French bankers to Russian oligarchs, has slowed sharply.
... The real estate arm of Union Investment, the German investment company, said it had delayed buying an office building in the City of London Because of the risk of Brexit.

Now how can anyone not want more of that? More chilling of business? More declines in London property prices? More delays to buying office buildings in the City? More discord and friction among the bourgeoisie of the UK, Germany, and France?

Reasons to be cheerful are........three, right Ian? 1. Uncertainty chills business 2. Top London Property hit 3. European groups delay plans.

When's the last time any social movement in the UK had such a "chilling effect" on the European bourgeoisie? On real estate prices in the City? Probably not since 1973- 1974 when the miners/power workers strike pushed Heath out of office. Or maybe 1926.

Reprint that FT article as a flyer and distribute it as widely as possible.

GW

My main objection to Trotsky is that he is an agent of extreme collectivist social forms which have reduced the importance of individuals to the benefit of insane, monstrously gigantic, economic corporate structures, in his own case feeding off the mass experiences people had gone though during World War One, and leading on to the utter helplessness of anyone opposed to (state) capitalism's state terror in all its mundane, lawful minutiae up to this present moment. The new civilisation which keeps trying to be born rests on individuals rather than religious or political collectives and demands an augmentation of the number and quality of genuine social bonds of common activity between such complete individuals, comparable to the increase we have experienced in the size of society. The problems individuals now face require new ways of thinking and feeling beyond the worn out divisions of the past - emotions versus facts or empiricists versus romantics. They demand a suspension of credulity and an indifference to the needless adherence to dogma that few of those attracted to political groups find attractive. The dangers we face in the coming century require an awareness of the role played by the irrational as well as the factual in human motivation. But instead of assimilating the world as we actually live it, in their despair over a lost worldview Trots and other air dogs continue to drift around in a sulk at the end of their long, prescriptive strings high above the dangers of messy reality without the slightest inkling of what it might be essential now for human beings to let themselves become, emotionally and intellectually, sexually or politically.

Auld-bod

There may be no fixed body of morality upon which we may draw now, but contrary to what you seem to be saying regarding 'facts', although the craving for factual validity should not be allowed to destroy creativity any more than should an impatient totality, what is most essential to an ethical imagination of what is necessary and possible (and long overdue) is a respect for what is objective, impersonal and real, since anything else leads to the demonisation of opponents you touched on earlier, because that way leads to all the horrors of the past, including that unhappy era which gave rise to the likes of Trotsky.

S. Artesian

Back to the EU Referendum:

The Best Reasons to Vote "Leave":
...

1. Uncertainty chills business 2. Top London Property hit 3. European groups delay plans.

When's the last time any social movement in the UK had such a "chilling effect" on the European bourgeoisie? On real estate prices in the City? Probably not since 1973- 1974 when the miners/power workers strike pushed Heath out of office. Or maybe 1926.

Reprint that FT article as a flyer and distribute it as widely as possible.

Capital seeks stability. So, in as much as a EU neo-liberalism has become the norm, it's no huge shock that capital has responded negatively to the "uncertainty" of the referendum.

However, we can also be pretty sure that in the event of a Brexit a new, yet still neo-liberal, equilibrium will emerge and the London housing bubble, gentrification, and sky-rocketing rent will resume normal service.

It goes without saying that only a mass social movement can combat the insane London housing situation and I've seen nothing to indicate that any referendum result will make that movement any more or less likely.

As a further point, capitalist instability is a deleterious for the working class without some serious degree of class struggle to defend working and living conditions. The crisis of 2007/2008 certainly caused a lot of "uncertainty", "friction", and "chilling" and I think it's fair to say that it wasn't exactly a boon for the global working class...

factvalue #385

I basically agree with your post.
When dealing with history we do select facts and present them as a narrative. I’m aware that nobody knows all the facts and even if we did our interpretation is subjective. The best I can do is not consciously present my views in a jaundiced manner.

Auld-bod

factvalue #385

I basically agree with your post.
When dealing with history we do select facts and present them as a narrative. I’m aware that nobody knows all the facts and even if we did our interpretation is subjective. The best I can do is not consciously present my views in a jaundiced manner.

So that's what he was saying. I've spent the last 2,hours scratching my head.

[/quote]So the answer is to hospitalise people?
[/quote]Again, did you actually watch the link I posted with interviews with Tommy Sheridan and Andy Murphy? You clearly believe, like Tommy Sheridan, that the Poll Tax rioters deserved to be attacked and arrested by the Police. Have you not seen what the Police did to people during the Poll Tax riots? Are you not aware that it was the fault of the Police that the riots occurred?

Ghost Whistler

Where have I ever espoused Trotskyism? I've asked before what Trotskyism is and noone has actually answered.

What counter revolutionary beliefs have I advocated?

If you are not espousing Trotskyism, or don't mean to, then why promote Militant? I think though, going by your comments on here and on the Red and Black TV youtube channel that you are a Trot. For example you once stated on there, quite recently, on the video about the June Referendum: "Whats wrong with Lindsey German, John Rees and Tariq Ali?" You were also abusive.
The idea that the Poll Tax rioters are bad people who deserved to be arrested etc and that state violence is fine, is counter-revolutionary. As is the idea that people should not defend themselves against the structural violence of the state and capitalism- which is what you appear to be saying. But it's ok- you hate Class War, so thats fine. Again, admins- where are you?

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

And what d'ya know, you can even find on youtube, footage of Tommy Sheridan condemning the rioters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDlqF6AE6dk

I don't know how to process this.

I find violence and bullying abhorrent, that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism.

So I don't remember how much of an effect this had on the poll tax ultimately, but did it swell the ranks of class war? The people that clearly delight in violence.

that's the difference for me. I won't shed a tear if a bank gets smashed up, but if ordinary working people in there (not perhaps the fred goodwins or bob diamonds of the world) are regarded as colleteral damage then I have to wonder what the hell's going on.

You seem to be implying that the Poll Tax rioters and/or Class War are bullies and just as bad as capitalists.

When did the Poll Tax rioters or Class War ever attack innocent working class people? Again- do you think people should just put up with the structural violence of capitalism- do you even think that the structural violence of capitalism is real?

Auld-bod

How about these 'facts'.

There are different forces competing within capitalism. The trade union movement created the Labour Party to represent the interests of organised labour. It was seeking to gain influence and power by this means. Over time the Labour Party started treating the unions simply as a source of income and in return helped the union leadership to curb shop floor power by elevating their status and authority, and through legislation to alleviate some of the worst excesses of the economic system. These social democratic reforms helped capitalism to modernise.

The Conservative Party played the game after WWII helping to give the working class a stake in the system by promoting private ownership and consumerism often financed through hire purchase. The competition between the parties was based on, who could run the system better and what goodies were on offer. The organised working class have been largely decimated with the destruction of manufacturing and the introduction of legal restraints. The political parties are only able to tinker with capitalism. If your Trotskyist friends suddenly found themselves in power they would find themselves on the same political treadmill. They equate socialism with state ownership. The form could change, unfortunately the same or worse oppressive system would remain.

EDIT
Use the system to get what we want?
Start a petition? Something stronger - pass a law?
As soon as this law passes both houses and the Queen signs off on it capitalism is officially over and libertarian communism is formally initiated. I’ll vote for that!

Is it really fair to call the people I know within the SWEP trotskyists? This accusation has been levelled at me twice in this very thread and I don't even know what the word means. Is it even relevant today? Trot is a term used in the media not left of labour to attack those that are. How can it still have any real meaning?

Maybe they are trots. I don't know. Ive never got the sense they were authoritarian in conversation. Am I missing something here? You say the SWEP equates socialism with state ownereship, but I haven't heard that. If it's true it's well hidden. They only explicitly advocate for worker control. Isn't that what socialism is: common ownership of the means of production?

When I say use the system, I mean use what we have to find a better placee to fight capitalism where possible. So the question then becomes: which is position is stronger for us to fight capitalism from, in or out the EU? The same with the general election. Are we better placed to fight capital under Labour or Tories? Doesn't mean you have to support those choices at all and that's not what I'm advocating, but there will be an outcome one way or the other.

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

there is also this http://screamingvioletsmag.co.uk/testimony-on-sexual-assault-in-the-socialist-party-2/

Ok, I don't know what to say to that. I don't want to be dismissive of issues like this at all, however I don't know what the SWEp themselves say about this nor do i know of any way I can find out. I certainly can't ask them, this is a highly personal issue. I've tried googling but didn't really find anything.

I'm not really sure what to think at all anymore, though being a rape survivor puts that into perspective.

The article makes mention of a split from a left leaning group (CWI?) in Sweden which, from what i can gather, is about a response to anarchist behaviour described, again, as violent.

the thing that happened in the Swedish section of the CWI was the covering up of rapes by a prominent member of the party, theres a thread here https://libcom.org/forums/news/triggers-socialist-justice-party-sexual-assault-scandal-26052014 and others else where on other sites.
i'm not sure where you getting the idea it was about anarchists being violent

I don't know. Finding out the truth about all this isn't easy.

Ok, so how do you suggest I deal with this information? Just walk away from the SWEP?

Ghost Whistler

Auld-bod

How about these 'facts'.

There are different forces competing within capitalism. The trade union movement created the Labour Party to represent the interests of organised labour. It was seeking to gain influence and power by this means. Over time the Labour Party started treating the unions simply as a source of income and in return helped the union leadership to curb shop floor power by elevating their status and authority, and through legislation to alleviate some of the worst excesses of the economic system. These social democratic reforms helped capitalism to modernise.

The Conservative Party played the game after WWII helping to give the working class a stake in the system by promoting private ownership and consumerism often financed through hire purchase. The competition between the parties was based on, who could run the system better and what goodies were on offer. The organised working class have been largely decimated with the destruction of manufacturing and the introduction of legal restraints. The political parties are only able to tinker with capitalism. If your Trotskyist friends suddenly found themselves in power they would find themselves on the same political treadmill. They equate socialism with state ownership. The form could change, unfortunately the same or worse oppressive system would remain.

EDIT
Use the system to get what we want?
Start a petition? Something stronger - pass a law?
As soon as this law passes both houses and the Queen signs off on it capitalism is officially over and libertarian communism is formally initiated. I’ll vote for that!

Is it really fair to call the people I know within the SWEP trotskyists? This accusation has been levelled at me twice in this very thread and I don't even know what the word means. Is it even relevant today? Trot is a term used in the media not left of labour to attack those that are. How can it still have any real meaning?

Maybe they are trots. I don't know. Ive never got the sense they were authoritarian in conversation. Am I missing something here? You say the SWEP equates socialism with state ownereship, but I haven't heard that. If it's true it's well hidden. They only explicitly advocate for worker control. Isn't that what socialism is: common ownership of the means of production?

When I say use the system, I mean use what we have to find a better placee to fight capitalism where possible. So the question then becomes: which is position is stronger for us to fight capitalism from, in or out the EU? The same with the general election. Are we better placed to fight capital under Labour or Tories? Doesn't mean you have to support those choices at all and that's not what I'm advocating, but there will be an outcome one way or the other.

you are much more polite on here than you are on youtube- where you think it's fine to obsessively post abuse and hatred- are you going to answer any of my questions or just ignore what I have to say and hope nobody notices?

red and black riot

So the answer is to hospitalise people?
Again, did you actually watch the link I posted with interviews with Tommy Sheridan and Andy Murphy? You clearly believe, like Tommy Sheridan, that the Poll Tax rioters deserved to be attacked and arrested by the Police. Have you not seen what the Police did to people during the Poll Tax riots? Are you not aware that it was the fault of the Police that the riots occurred?

You ask me if i watched the clip and then in the same breath behave just as dismissively as you accuse me of behaving. I don't 'clearly' believe like Tommy Sheridan and have said nothing remotely akin to what you claim. Please directly quote where I said poll tax rioters deserve to be attacked or apologise, I'm getting fucking tired of this shit; if you genuinely think I endorse police brutality then you're either trolling me or you're a cunt. You bemoan what i've posted in Martin's videos, yet not once have you posted to respond in those same videos and instead attack me here and refuse to listen to what I've actually told you. I have no real interest in Tommy Sheridan, I don't care what he says. I care even less about what he said thirty fucking years ago. Do you have any evidence that his views, then, are representative of the trotskyite organisation I'm clearly shilling for now? If not, then fuck off because you're no less a coward than Martin on his videos.

red and black riot

you are much more polite on here than you are on youtube- where you think it's fine to obsessively post abuse and hatred- are you going to answer any of my questions or just ignore what I have to say and hope nobody notices?

Clearly your talent for mind reading is wasted here.

What questions have you asked that I haven't answered? Nothing you have asked has been pleasant or respectful at all and your last post accuses me of excusing police brutality. Given that i've already stated my dislike for violence how on earth do you draw the conclusion that I endorse the police using it? If you can't even think straight there is little point continuing.

I post questions on those videos to provoke a fucking repsonse from someone who not once has ever answered a single question. Given that you people care so much about smashing capitalism it stands to reason that you might make the effort to engage with someone who is interested in what you have to say on the matter. But instead you want to resort to tired insinuations from a hostile mindset. I have no idea why you think I'm your enemy but carry on like this and that's what I'll be.

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

So the answer is to hospitalise people?

Again, did you actually watch the link I posted with interviews with Tommy Sheridan and Andy Murphy? You clearly believe, like Tommy Sheridan, that the Poll Tax rioters deserved to be attacked and arrested by the Police. Have you not seen what the Police did to people during the Poll Tax riots? Are you not aware that it was the fault of the Police that the riots occurred?[/quote]
You ask me if i watched the clip and then in the same breath behave just as dismissively as you accuse me of behaving. I don't 'clearly' believe like Tommy Sheridan and have said nothing remotely akin to what you claim. Please directly quote where I said poll tax rioters deserve to be attacked or apologise, I'm getting fucking tired of this shit; if you genuinely think I endorse police brutality then you're either trolling me or you're a cunt. You bemoan what i've posted in Martin's videos, yet not once have you posted to respond in those same videos and instead attack me here and refuse to listen to what I've actually told you. I have no real interest in Tommy Sheridan, I don't care what he says. I care even less about what he said thirty fucking years ago. Do you have any evidence that his views, then, are representative of the trotskyite organisation I'm clearly shilling for now? If not, then fuck off because you're no less a coward than Martin on his videos.[/quote]I have listened to you and you come across as a complete knob. And if you do have asbergers or some kind of autism- it doesn't mean you are incapable of being a knob- if thats even true.

You haven't listened at all and you are done. Go fuck yourself you sad little cunt.

Is it really fair to call the people I know within the SWEP trotskyists? This accusation has been levelled at me twice in this very thread and I don't even know what the word means. Is it even relevant today? Trot is a term used in the media not left of labour to attack those that are. How can it still have any real meaning?
Maybe they are trots. I don't know. Ive never got the sense they were authoritarian in conversation. Am I missing something here? You say the SWEP equates socialism with state ownereship, but I haven't heard that. If it's true it's well hidden. They only explicitly advocate for worker control. Isn't that what socialism is: common ownership of the means of production?

I'm genuinely not sure whether you are deliberately being disingenuous or happen to be sadly poliitcally misinformed.

I posted a long message explaining the word Trotskyism to you. So you know what myself and others mean by the word. You never replied so i have no idea if you accept the meaning or if you refute it. If you feel you are not qualified to answer, then it is up to you to acknowledge your uignorance and rectify it and undertake more reading and study.

From your comment though, i think you failed to do such a thing before you chose to join SPEW. To say that SPEW does not advocate state ownership when its own website advocates re-nationalising the steel industry doesn't bode well for your knowledge of the party you joined.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/22510/31-03-2016/tata-steel-act-now-fight-for-nationalisation.

But to further your education lets clarify what public and common ownership is. Since you clearly never consider my contribution as worthy perhaps this link will assist
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.
Under public ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited.

And on what workers control is.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1967/workers-control.htm

Workers’ control of production presupposes a social revolution cannot gradually be achieved through working class actions within capitalist system. Where it has been introduced as a measure of reform, it turned out to be an additional means of controlling the workers via their own organisations...While there cannot be socialism without workers’ control, neither can there be real workers’ control without socialism. To assert that gradual increase of workers’ control in capitalism is an actual possibility merely plays into the hands of the widespread demagoguery of the ruling classes to hide their absolute class-rule by false social reforms dressed in terms such as co-management, participation or determination. Workers’ control excludes class-collaboration; it cannot partake in but instead abolishes the system of capital production. Neither socialism nor workers’ control has anywhere become a reality. State-capitalism and market-socialism, or the combination of both, still find the working class in the position of wage workers without effective control over their production and its distribution. Their social position does not differ from that of workers in the mixed or unmixed capitalist economy.

Words do hold meaning and some word's meanings should be cherished and protected from abuse and mis-use. We aren't all humpty-dumptys "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

ajjohnstone

I'm genuinely not sure whether you are deliberately being disingenuous or happen to be sadly poliitcally misinformed.

How am i deliberately being disingenuous?

I joined a group that people are now telling me is a bad group to be a part of. I'm trying to find out what exactly I'm meant to do with that information given that the people in it that I have interacted with have been good people. Do i throw that away and go back to being isolated?

I posted a long message explaining the word Trotskyism to you. So you know what myself and others mean by the word. You never replied so i have no idea if you accept the meaning or if you refute it. If you feel you are not qualified to answer, then it is up to you to acknowledge your uignorance and rectify it and undertake more reading and study.

There were a lot of posts to respond to including one guy attacking me repeatedly - whose ridiculous behaviour seems to be acceptable to everyone else. I'm grateful for your post but I don't have anything to add to it.

From your comment though, i think you failed to do such a thing before you chose to join SPEW. To say that SPEW does not advocate state ownership when its own website advocates re-nationalising the steel industry doesn't bode well for your knowledge of the party you joined.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/22510/31-03-2016/tata-steel-act-now-fight-for-nationalisation.

It is my understanding they are referring to a short term plan to get the industry out of the hands of capitalists that will simply 'restrcuture' it and cut jobs before selling it on for a profit. I haven't seen any evidence they are for state control of industries like this in the long term. I even said to them that IMO the workers should take the place over and was told that was their opinion too.

But to further your education lets clarify what public and common ownership is. Since you clearly never consider my contribution as worthy perhaps this link will assist
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm
Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.
Under public ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited.

Why are you saying that I don't consider your contribution worthy? I said nothing of the kind! What is the reason you are all now putting words in my mouth? FFS this is facile.

I haven't advocated what you are calling public ownership. This is just state control which I don't advocate. I think we're bordering on semantics here; by common ownership I mean worker control. Common as in the working class, not the state or some state-like entity that then has control over the workers.

Workers’ control of production presupposes a social revolution cannot gradually be achieved through working class actions within capitalist system. Where it has been introduced as a measure of reform, it turned out to be an additional means of controlling the workers via their own organisations...While there cannot be socialism without workers’ control, neither can there be real workers’ control without socialism. To assert that gradual increase of workers’ control in capitalism is an actual possibility merely plays into the hands of the widespread demagoguery of the ruling classes to hide their absolute class-rule by false social reforms dressed in terms such as co-management, participation or determination. Workers’ control excludes class-collaboration; it cannot partake in but instead abolishes the system of capital production. Neither socialism nor workers’ control has anywhere become a reality. State-capitalism and market-socialism, or the combination of both, still find the working class in the position of wage workers without effective control over their production and its distribution. Their social position does not differ from that of workers in the mixed or unmixed capitalist economy.

That seems to suggest workers will never control the means of production and socialism is impossible, never mind the downfall of capitalism or the rise of communism.

Ghost Whistler #392

‘Is it really fair to call the people I know within the SWEP trotskyists? This accusation has been levelled at me twice in this very thread and I don't even know what the word means. Is it even relevant today? Trot is a term used in the media not left of labour to attack those that are. How can it still have any real meaning?’

You are an ignorant person. You ask for information, ignore it when given, and sail gaily on your way. Is it fair? No, to find the truth requires effort. What is relevant? To understand the present you must know something about the past. Stick with your chums they’ll love you. Always room for one more inside.

EDIT
deleted

Trotskyism is a real ideology and it being used incorrectly as a pejorative doesn't make it any less so. People are always using anarchism incorrectly to mean something chaotic and disorganized but that doesn't mean that we should abandon the term and it's proper meaning.

Yeah, it's a shame. Difficulty in grasping new ideas is fair enough, I mean, the saturation of misinformation takes a good deal of breaking through, but add arrogance and a reactionary victim complex to that difficulty and you're backing a loser. For now at least I'm out of any conversations with GW.

Christ on a crutch, admins, like cops, are never there when you need one. Where is the glorious admin who might exercise a bit of rationality and split this discussion into a thread separate from this one on the EU referendum?

Chilli Sauce

Capital seeks stability.

No, capital does not seek stability. Capital seeks profit. Capital seeks expanded value. To accomplish that, it seeks control and power, destabilizing both prospects in the very process.

The fact is, despite my delight at the distress of the bourgeoisie over the possibility of a Brexit, the FT has it wrong. The slowdown in City property prices, the reduction in hiring in the financial sector, like the unease of the bourgeoisie itself, is a result of the accumulating, and enduring, weaknesses in capital accumulation in the EU.

Capital is not an "equilibrium-seeking" mode.

However, we can also be pretty sure that in the event of a Brexit a new, yet still neo-liberal, equilibrium will emerge and the London housing bubble, gentrification, and sky-rocketing rent will resume normal service.

See above. Not very likely either way. There has been no "neo-liberal" equilibrium since 2008; there has been instability, acute class struggle [what do you call Spain, France, Britain, Greece etc in 2009/2010 if not heightened class struggle? What do you call 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 if not periods of heightened class struggle, with the bourgeoisie on the offensive, and the working class in retreat?]

Either way the referendum goes, EU and UK capitalism will experience continuous disequilibrium, and slowing rates of accumulation.

It goes without saying that only a mass social movement can combat the insane London housing situation and I've seen nothing to indicate that any referendum result will make that movement any more or less likely.

Correct. But that doesn't mean the asset inflation cannot collapse on its own.

As a further point, capitalist instability is a deleterious for the working class without some serious degree of class struggle to defend working and living conditions. The crisis of 2007/2008 certainly caused a lot of "uncertainty", "friction", and "chilling" and I think it's fair to say that it wasn't exactly a boon for the global working class...

See above . The crisis of 2008--20?? has been accompanied by periods of intensified class struggle. The question isn't "is it a boon for the global working class?" That's never the question when dealing with capital. Only the overthrow of capital is a boon for the working class. The point being that the "instability" is inherent, immanent, to capital. And that when that instability begins to emerge in an acute state, it should be welcomed, promoted.

The "deleterious to the working class argument" has a vague similarity to the argument used by some in 2008-2009 in the US, in their attempt to justify supporting the various interventions programs of the Fed, the US Treasury, the FDIC, and the Congress to mitigate the crisis-- "Total collapse of the system would be deleterious to the working class." No such thing-- total collapse of the system, as opposed to preserving capitalism, is less deleterious.

In any case, I was "endorsing" the FT article for it humorous impact; a bit of schadenfreude-- which does contain some, but not the whole, truth.

Auld-bod

Ghost Whistler #392

‘Is it really fair to call the people I know within the SWEP trotskyists? This accusation has been levelled at me twice in this very thread and I don't even know what the word means. Is it even relevant today? Trot is a term used in the media not left of labour to attack those that are. How can it still have any real meaning?’

You are an ignorant person. You ask for information, ignore it when given, and sail gaily on your way. Is it fair? No, to find the truth requires effort. What is relevant? To understand the present you must know something about the past. Stick with your chums they’ll love you. Always room for one more inside.

EDIT
deleted

I haven't ignored the information.

Stick with my chums? I've repeatedly asked what you would have me do? Tell the people that have been good to me to fuck off because someone on the internets said you were trots? I'm asking! Yet noone is answering. I responded directly to the accusation of rape that was presented with this very question. What do you think will happen if I bring that up? Do you think anything productive will come from that?

Fleur

Trotskyism is a real ideology and it being used incorrectly as a pejorative doesn't make it any less so. People are always using anarchism incorrectly to mean something chaotic and disorganized but that doesn't mean that we should abandon the term and it's proper meaning.

I've said no such thing.

I was attacked by someone who didn't like my comments on youtube to an anarchist who refuses to engage with people while insulting everyone else. Yet where is the opprobrium there?

Noah Fence

Yeah, it's a shame. Difficulty in grasping new ideas is fair enough, I mean, the saturation of misinformation takes a good deal of breaking through, but add arrogance and a reactionary victim complex to that difficulty and you're backing a loser. For now at least I'm out of any conversations with GW.

I haven't been remotely arrogant. This is just abuse at this point, why is that allowed?

"I think we're bordering on semantics here" The final point in my post was that language is important and not to be casually dismissed.

"I've repeatedly asked what you would have me do?" And i have told you - Educate yourself. Just how much history of SPEW, do you actually know? It never sprung out of nowhere. It has a very long history.

"That seems to suggest workers will never control the means of production and socialism is impossible, never mind the downfall of capitalism or the rise of communism." An interesting interpretation but just how exactly did you reach that conclusion?

Perhaps you can elaborate on your other statement "by common ownership I mean worker control. Common as in the working class, not the state or some state-like entity that then has control over the workers." Is this syndicalism you are advocating? Doesn't the phrase "workers' control" imply the continued existence of a working class and not the control of the productive system by society and communities as a whole? Are you asking that the workers on the shop-floor should control production through a workshop organisation rather than through society.

Just what is workers control in the context of the UK? Surely not socialism in one country. So is it about workers exploiting themselves to compete on the world capitalist market? Let us assume that the Tata steel workers have successfully confronted the forces of the state and exercised their workers control, “the management of the factories by the workers themselves.” The market would still be operating and these workers would be selling the steel in the foundries and the sale of these steel girders would give them an income which would enable them to live, to support their families, to buy the food, to pay the rent and the mortgage and all the other costs involved in living in a market system. They would have a lot of other costs as well. A workers Tata would have hundreds of sub-contractors supplying components dispersed throughout a worldwide network of productive links. You’ve got iron ore mining, the energy suppliers and world transport. Steel production is social production and by that we mean production organised on a global scale.

What this means also for ex-Tata workers these workers will be in competition with other steel producers such as the Chinese - the reason that there is a over-supply of cheaper steel in the first place which caused the closure. So in order to maintain their livelihoods they will be in intense competition they will have to tryi to capture a bigger share of the market by cutting their costs and increasing their own supply They would have to maintain rigorous efficiency in line with the efficiency of these other companies. In any situation where their costs were disproportionately high resulting in relatively higher prices they would lose sales and there would have to economise and perhaps some workers would have to go. Where there was overproduction in relation to market capacity again there would have to be cutbacks. They could not go on incurring the accumulating costs of steel which they could not sell. It would then be a matter of them democratically deciding to cut wages, increase working hours and which of them is going to be out of a job. They face the problem of financing expanded production . Perhaps they will raise the capital on the share market. This, of course, is impossible. No bank or any investor would dream of investing in an outfit which had seized the capital funds of a company. So it is cap in hand to the government for a subsidy. You can, of course, see where all this is heading. The government will insist upon ultimate say and control, over-riding any workers decision.

In succeeded to gain self- management, just as the previous owners they would need to respond to the same economic pressures faced by the previous capitalist board of directors. They would be acting as the functionaries of capital; different personalities maybe but exactly the same economic role. In a period of chaos, such as in Argentina,you may get a chance of the worker taaing control of a factory. But when stabilised the economic forces of capitalism are immediately brought back into play, so that daily book-keeping, cost effectiveness, and the irresistible pressure to sustain income over expenditure again act to maintain production as a capitalist structure. The particular ways in which a production unit is organised makes no difference whatsoever to this process of economic selection, It can be the usual capitalist company, it can be a so-called workers cooperative under workers’ control. It can be monks in a monastery producing herbs or honey for sale. The decision-making procedures can be authoritarian or democratic, it makes no difference to the fact that whatever the production unit is, in order to exist it must be economically viable. This is the process of economic selection by which the present structure of production is maintained as an exclusively capitalist structure. The idea that workers cooperatives under workers’ control is socialism or is in any way a step towards socialism is an illusion. The only practical way to get a change from capitalism to socialism is to have a majority of socialists acting democratically to capture control of the state and then from this position of control, to remove the capitalist features from social production through the enactment of common ownership.

Am i wrong in concluding that SPEW aspires to the establishment of a "workers state"? If so, in my 40-odd years of political involvement, i have serious misread and misinterpreted their intentions. Just what sort of society is their immediate goal?

S., capital seeks stability in the pursuit of profit. This is similar to why employers recognize unions at high points of class struggle. This is not exactly difficult stuff.

And you don't think the austerity, attack on working class living conditions, and increased inequality we've seen since the crisis isn't part of the larger neo-liberal model?

ajjohnstone

"I think we're bordering on semantics here" The final point in my post was that language is important and not to be casually dismissed.

"I've repeatedly asked what you would have me do?" And i have told you - Educate yourself. Just how much history of SPEW, do you actually know? It never sprung out of nowhere. It has a very long history.

I am not opposed to learning about things, nor have i given any indication that's what I think. But you have no answered my question. How do i raise these issues and expect to be taken seriously? I've asked this repeatedly to no avail.

"That seems to suggest workers will never control the means of production and socialism is impossible, never mind the downfall of capitalism or the rise of communism." An interesting interpretation but just how exactly did you reach that conclusion?

Because it logically follows from the statement within the quote you provided that for worker control to occur socialism must occur, but socialism cannot occur without worker control.

I don't see how you can resolve the paradox.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your other statement "by common ownership I mean worker control. Common as in the working class, not the state or some state-like entity that then has control over the workers." Is this syndicalism you are advocating? Doesn't the phrase "workers' control" imply the continued existence of a working class and not the control of the productive system by society and communities as a whole? Are you asking that the workers on the shop-floor should control production through a workshop organisation rather than through society.

The phrase workers control is straightforward and refers to two things: the people working at the steel plant and control of that plant. There was no implicatoin there at all and if that is what you have read into it then you are, at best, being deeply uncharitable. It seems that you are not intending to engage in honest discourse, but trying to catch me out with a view to making me look bad.

Just what is workers control in the context of the UK? Surely not socialism in one country.

This question, which you have already given an answer for as if that is my response, is another example of this uncharitable discourse. I don't know what worker control means in the context of the UK. If you want to ask this question genuinely then please explain what you mean. I have never said that socialism can exist in isolation, particularly surrounded by capitalist states outside. Nor have I advocated for that.

Your followup questions are predicated on this fact and so I am ignoring them. You are pursuing a straw man and you are being uncharitable.

Am i wrong in concluding that SPEW aspires to the establishment of a "workers state"? If so, in my 40-odd years of political involvement, i have serious misread and misinterpreted their intentions. Just what sort of society is their immediate goal?

Since you think I don't know enough about SPEW or what they stand for, I don't know why you are asking me.

I made it clear much earlier that my reasons for joining were based primarily out of mutual support. I don't for one moment believe they will ever get elected. So far they have offered me more support, even though I don't live near enough to regularly attend meetings, than you have.

While I don't deny the issues that have been raised about them, this entire tangent was initiated off the back of a personal attack made against me which has been allowed to stand while I have been insulted and made to look stupid. is this the kind of discussion and comradeship i can expect from anarchists/communists/whtatever?

Chilli,
Another way of looking at this perhaps - Some capitalists (rather than Capital as such) may seek 'market stability' and a compliant working class in the areas which support their particular profit requirements whilst at the same time seeking to destabilise the markets of other capitalists with whom they are in competition, but either way global capitalism is not under their control but is inherently unstable and effective working class struggle can only further destabilise the system short of revolution.

Chilli Sauce

S., capital seeks stability in the pursuit of profit. This is similar to why employers recognize unions at high points of class struggle. This is not exactly difficult stuff.

And you don't think the austerity, attack on working class living conditions, and increased inequality we've seen since the crisis isn't part of the larger neo-liberal model?

No, capital does not seek stability in the pursuit of profit. Capital seeks "stability" when private property is threatened. Right, it's not difficult stuff. It's quite clear that capitalism does not "seek" nor require "stability," "balance," equilibrium etc. etc. in its drive for accumulation. Iraq 2003 was fundamental to the restoration of profitability in the energy sector in the US, destabilizing as it was to the Persian gulf, to the US relations with Europe, to other sectors of the capitalist economy.

Employers recognize unions at high points of class struggle? That's seeking stability? Not quite that clear. It's a simple cost/benefit calculation; a question of forces, and force, of muting the class struggle effectively. So at one and the same time, capitalism can "recognize" unions in one sector, or one country, or several countries, while attacking unions in another sector, another country, or other countries.

And if employers recognize unions at high point of class struggle because stability is essential to the pursuit of profit, then how can you equate "neo-liberalism" with stability, or with the pursuit of stability, since the pursuit of profits under "neo-liberalism" has included consistent attacks on unions, decertification of unions, etc?

What's going as presented in the FT article is humorous, charming, and produces a sense of glee-- hiring in the finance sector down 21%-- outstanding! But it's a bit like saying, the "uncertain situation in Brazil is causing capital to flee." Uhh......no, actually that's the reverse of what has occurred-- the flight of capital has created the instability in Brazil and that flight itself was determined by deterioration in the rate and profitability of accumulation.

I think austerity, attacks on the working class, since 2008 have been part of the general trend since 1979, made much more acute by the crisis, but in no way shape or form derived from the need for stability.

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

things i personal remember SPEW doing locally: stacking a meeting at any anti cuts group to force a steering committee, then abandoning the group to stand in elections; turning up to demos other people organised with megaphones and or stalls trying to make it look like it was all them; turning up meetings organised by other people just to recite the party line at length anytime they had a chance to speak; discourager workers from taking action such as work to rule because it would be difficult to organises through the union.

This is not my experience. The people i've met aren't like this.

I don't know how to relate to those experiences you describe, I'm not trying to deny them. I just don't understand what you'd have me say or do?

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

there is also this http://screamingvioletsmag.co.uk/testimony-on-sexual-assault-in-the-socialist-party-2/

Ok, I don't know what to say to that. I don't want to be dismissive of issues like this at all, however I don't know what the SWEp themselves say about this nor do i know of any way I can find out. I certainly can't ask them, this is a highly personal issue. I've tried googling but didn't really find anything.

I'm not really sure what to think at all anymore, though being a rape survivor puts that into perspective.

The article makes mention of a split from a left leaning group (CWI?) in Sweden which, from what i can gather, is about a response to anarchist behaviour described, again, as violent.

the thing that happened in the Swedish section of the CWI was the covering up of rapes by a prominent member of the party, theres a thread here https://libcom.org/forums/news/triggers-socialist-justice-party-sexual-assault-scandal-26052014 and others else where on other sites.
i'm not sure where you getting the idea it was about anarchists being violent

I don't know. Finding out the truth about all this isn't easy.

Ok, so how do you suggest I deal with this information? Just walk away from the SWEP?

i'm not sure why your asking me what you should do, you asked why people hate SWEP and i gave you some of the reasons. you need to decide for yourselves if your ok with being in an organisation that operates in this way.

Operates what way exactly? Those are serious allegation which is why, again, i ask what I'm meant to do with that information? You insinuate they have a certain, negative, attitude toward such allegations all I want is proof of this. I haven't seen proof, I have seen one person's claim and on that alone I am bereft of options. Do you seriously think that I'm going to get very far pursuing this without more to go on? Do you have any evidence that they do have a dismissive attitude toward rape beyond that article? I'm not talking about affiliates in other countries either, they cannot be held responsible for that surely.

Ghost Whistler

I'm not talking about affiliates in other countries either, they cannot be held responsible for that surely.

??? Err yes they can, no one's forcing them to affiliate or not affiliate with any other organisation.

Edit: Also if you you're really not sure that SPEW are Trots, then why can't you just ask them, they'll either say yes or no.

GW

Stick with my chums? I've repeatedly asked what you would have me do? Tell the people that have been good to me to fuck off because someone on the internets said you were trots? I'm asking! Yet noone is answering. I responded directly to the accusation of rape that was presented with this very question. What do you think will happen if I bring that up? Do you think anything productive will come from that?

What I would do, and did when we became aware of a member having raped someone, was first of all to support the survivor; we raised the incident with the rest of the organization; they weren't happy about it so we fought them; since they in the end did nothing and was more interested in protecting the reputation of the organization we decided to leave. Many of the people in that organization (Common Cause in Ontario, Canada) I was chums with; they were nice and all. And I felt more at home in this organization than others I've been in. But in the end, they defended rape culture rather than fighting it. Nothing productive came from doing what we did, but we did it because it was the right thing to do.

If I were you, I would raise the issue. Most likely what will happen is that people will stick their collective head in the sand or attack you for being divisive or something like that. The question you should ask yourself is whether you're comfortable of being in an organization where rape culture is alive,

Ghost Whistler

I find violence and bullying abhorrent, that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism.[/quote]Go Pacifist-Trotskyism! Lol!

Ghost Whistler

you're no less a coward than Martin on his videos.

Well I'd like to think that as someone who has participated in direct action that I'm not a coward. As for Martin, I happen to know that he is someone who is a veteren anarchist and militant anti-fascist who wrote a book called Anti-Fascist and, as I understand it, has spent much of his life, from an early age standing up to thugs and bullies and confronting fascist thugs on the streets (not posting abuse to old men- who have fought cancer- from behind a keyboard) - yeah, what a coward he must be.

So, enlighten me GW, which working-class people did Class War attack? I believe you called them 'collateral damage'.You didn't answer me.

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

you're no less a coward than Martin on his videos.

Well I'd like to think that as someone who has participated in direct action that I'm not a coward. As for Martin, I happen to know that he is someone who is a veteran anarchist and militant anti-fascist who wrote a book called Anti-Fascist and, as I understand it, has spent much of his life, from an early age standing up to thugs and bullies and confronting fascist thugs on the streets (not posting abuse to old men- who have fought cancer- from behind a keyboard) - yeah, what a coward he must be. You may be quite articulate but you clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Reddebrek

Ghost Whistler

I'm not talking about affiliates in other countries either, they cannot be held responsible for that surely.

??? Err yes they can, no one's forcing them to affiliate or not affiliate with any other organisation.

Edit: Also if you you're really not sure that SPEW are Trots, then why can't you just ask them, they'll either say yes or no.

That question isn't the difficult one. The question I'm more concerned with involves the accusation they are rape apologists.

Yes, noone is forcing them to affiliate, but doing so doesn't mean they are directly responsible for the rape of another human being nor for the action of an affiliate in covering it up - if that is indeed what happened.

Yes, noone is forcing them to affiliate, but doing so doesn't mean they are directly responsible for the rape of another human being nor for the action of an affiliate in covering it up - if that is indeed what happened.

Not directly responsible for that particular rape, no, but by joining with an organization that did nothing, they would effectively be supporting what that organization did. And most likely that is indeed what happened. Usually there is no smoke without fire, and rape culture burns white hot in many leftist organizations. Sadly.

[quote=Khawaga]GW

If I were you, I would raise the issue. Most likely what will happen is that people will stick their collective head in the sand or attack you for being divisive or something like that. The question you should ask yourself is whether you're comfortable of being in an organization where rape culture is alive,

Fair enough, but I need more to go on before I can raise this issue. All I have so far is the person involved making the claim in a blog. I don't know this person at all, I joined about a year before she quit. I have never heard of this story or anything else like it. The only accusation i was aware of at the time involved the SWP. I need to be sure of the facts surrounding any cover up before I pursue it because that's the issue I would be pursuing.

Hers the video that I'm referring to, note the comments below it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvz_vin3O3w

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

I find violence and bullying abhorrent, that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism.

Go Pacifist-Trotskyism! Lol![/quote]

This is just facile. You want I should be glorifying violence like your mate Andrew Murphy? What a mug he was. What did he think was going to happen being interviewed by the BBC? Did he not think they'd look into his newspaper and find exactly what they needed to make him and Class War look stupid? Do you really think people are going to be sympathetic to the class struggle when they hear that? Of course not! And yet here you are insulting me for not taking pleasure in the suffering of others. Get real. If violence is necessary, big if by the way, that's one thing, but you never glorify it ffs. Taking pleasure in causing pain or injury to another human being doens't make you a class warrior, it makes you a sadist.

double post

red and black riot

Go Pacifist-Trotskyism! Lol!

This is just facile. You want I should be glorifying violence like your mate Andrew Murphy? What a mug he was. What did he think was going to happen being interviewed by the BBC? Did he not think they'd look into his newspaper and find exactly what they needed to make him and Class War look stupid? Do you really think people are going to be sympathetic to the class struggle when they hear that? Of course not! And yet here you are insulting me for not taking pleasure in the suffering of others. Get real. If violence is necessary, big if by the way, that's one thing, but you never glorify it ffs. Taking pleasure in causing pain or injury to another human being doens't make you a class warrior, it makes you a sadist.

Khawaga

Yes, noone is forcing them to affiliate, but doing so doesn't mean they are directly responsible for the rape of another human being nor for the action of an affiliate in covering it up - if that is indeed what happened.

Not directly responsible for that particular rape, no, but by joining with an organization that did nothing, they would effectively be supporting what that organization did. And most likely that is indeed what happened. Usually there is no smoke without fire, and rape culture burns white hot in many leftist organizations. Sadly.

Without knowing the full story I cannot comment. All i know is that an allegation has been made. Noone so far has provided anything more. I hate rape culture, and if this is what has happened then questions will be asked, I can assure you, but I cannot just go shooting my mouth off.

They are affiliated with them, I don't think that's the same as joining an organisation that shelters rapists. For all I know they may be equally appalled at what happened and have spoken out. I dont know. I need more to go on.

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

you're no less a coward than Martin on his videos.

Well I'd like to think that as someone who has participated in direct action that I'm not a coward. As for Martin, I happen to know that he is someone who is a veteren anarchist and militant anti-fascist who wrote a book called Anti-Fascist and, as I understand it, has spent much of his life, from an early age standing up to thugs and bullies and confronting fascist thugs on the streets (not posting abuse to old men- who have fought cancer- from behind a keyboard) - yeah, what a coward he must be.

Really? Then why is it so difficult for him to engage with people asking questions? How do you win people over to your struggle otherwise? All he seems to do is pour scorn on people that dont' share his views picking on soft targets like a couple of hipsters running a gimmicky cafe or the well intentioned but naive followers of the People's Assembly (he called chumps). Is that a good advert for the class struggle? Or is it just inverse snobbery.

red and black riot

So, enlighten me GW, which working-class people did Class War attack? I believe you called them 'collateral damage'.You didn't answer me.

I didn't call anyone collateral damage, go back and read what I posted again because it's clear you didn't pay attention. In fact the point I made, which is not an obscure one, is to ask whether you consider the people you attack physically collateral damage. Hospitalising coppers may be entertaining, but they are still people ffs. If my comment that the Tories are inhuman is to be called into question then how about showing the same standards here.

S. Artesian

I think austerity, attacks on the working class, since 2008 have been part of the general trend since 1979, made much more acute by the crisis, but in no way shape or form derived from the need for stability.

Yeah, that's not what I said.

Anyway, capital (more than just capitalists, who are more than capable of acting in their shared class interests) obviously seeks stability. Our current labor relations regime came as a result of an intense period of class struggle and is structured as it is precisely to encourage stability in the workplace.

You don't think free trade agreements, global monetary policy, and even the EU itself aren't about creating stability and predictability in global markets? Obviously, theyre about expanding market reach and rebalancing labor-capital relations as well, but capital and capitalists don't like market volatility and a huge part of global capitalist activity is about avoiding instability so the wheels of global capital can continue functioning in a smooth, predictable way - in a word, stability.

red and black riot

Hers the video that I'm referring to, note the comments below it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvz_vin3O3w

You mean this comment:

And yet again no fucking interest in engaging. You're a fucking joke mate. Take your hatred and division and shove it
up your hypocritical cunt.

In response to someone providing no discussion, taking no interest in talking to people, and spending his time insulting people. How's that working out for you, has it caused the downfall of capitalism?

If my comments bothered you, why didn't you respond there and then? Funny that you are only getting exercised over this here and now.

Chilli Sauce

S. Artesian

I think austerity, attacks on the working class, since 2008 have been part of the general trend since 1979, made much more acute by the crisis, but in no way shape or form derived from the need for stability.

Yeah, that's not what I said.

Anyway, capital (more than just capitalists, who are more than capable of acting in their shared class interests) obviously seeks stability. Our current labor relations regime came as a result of an intense period of class struggle and is structured as it is precisely to encourage stability in the workplace.

You don't think free trade agreements, global monetary policy, and even the EU itself aren't about creating stability and predictability in global markets? Obviously, theyre about expanding market reach and rebalancing labor-capital relations as well, but capital and capitalists don't like market volatility and a huge part of global capitalist activity is about avoiding instability so the wheels of global capital can continue functioning in a smooth, predictable way - in a word, stability.

I keep providing examples or explanations that show that it's not about stability, and you keep saying that "obviously capitalism seeks stability." Stability is the ideological cover for preserving private property; just like political economy is the ideological cover for the value relations embedded in wage-labor.

One more time-- no, stability is not the issue. Accumulation is, profit is and those do not require stability in their creation or aggrandizement. Nor do they produce stability in their creation and or aggrandizement.

Capital isn't creating stability in Brazil, and those looking to impeach Rousseff aren't doing it out of a concern for stability.

Does anyone honestly think that the Emergency Liquidity facilities of the EU are about creating stability in Greece or in Ireland or in Spain? That EU requirements about allowable budget deficits are about "stability"? That the halving of pensions in Greece was done in the interests of stability?

There are the concrete examples of how EU capitalism fundamentally undermines stability. Time for you to say, "but obviously, it's all about stability."

PS Where the fuck are the admins? The notorious Stephen or Ed or John or anyone to separate this GW-centric discussion into its own thread which anyone with an ounce of sense will then studiously ignore?

Ghost Whistler

Operates what way exactly?

seeks to coopt or undermine campaigns they don't control. Refuses to do anything about abusive men in the party

Ghost Whistler

Those are serious allegation which is why, again, i ask what I'm meant to do with that information? You insinuate they have a certain, negative, attitude toward such allegations all I want is proof of this. I haven't seen proof, I have seen one person's claim and on that alone I am bereft of options. Do you seriously think that I'm going to get very far pursuing this without more to go on? Do you have any evidence that they do have a dismissive attitude toward rape beyond that article? I'm not talking about affiliates in other countries either, they cannot be held responsible for that surely.

i dont insinuate, i state clearly and plainly that they support abusers not the people assaulted.
what do you mean by proof? you want a fucking video? you've got to deal with the fact that we are not have that kind of evidence, so you've got a choice, believe people who claim to have been raped, sexual assaulted etc, or support rapists. SPEW took the latter option

Of course accumulation is the issue! But stability aids accumulation and the smooth flow of capital, that's what I've said like 8 times.

Look, if capital doesn't seek stability, why do you think we had the bank bailouts in 2008?

And yes, capital will accept and even encourage instability in some cases, but that's in pursuit of specific aims. Capital doesn't want constant coups, constant strikes, or constants crashes. (Obviously).

Ghost Whistler

That question isn't the difficult one. The question I'm more concerned with involves the accusation they are rape apologists.

Your right it isn't difficult at all, that's why I don't understand why so many of your comments were going on and on, and on about whether or not the political party affiliated to a Trotskyist international is itself Trotskyist political party.

Yes, noone is forcing them to affiliate, but doing so doesn't mean they are directly responsible for the rape of another human being nor for the action of an affiliate in covering it up - if that is indeed what happened

No, but it does mean that they as an organisation have chosen to remain allied with a party whose senior member is a rapist and who has been aided and abetted by other senior members. Rather than show that it is an organisation that opposes rape and the covering up of rape.

When the Socialist Workers Party was exposed for covering up sexual assault by a senior member, several groups affiliated to it cut all ties to them. As did a good chunk of its membership. SPEW on the other hand remains business as usual.

Political organisations are not islands, the connections, friends and enemies they make reflect on and influence them. Seriously where exactly do you draw the line? Would it be okay for SPEW (or your org of choice) to be affiliated with a death squad? A gang of cannibals? How about a mad scientist who experiments on humanity? Because you haven't really left yourself much wiggle room here.

Chilli Sauce

And yes, capital will accept and even encourage instability in some cases, but that's in pursuit of specific aims. Capital doesn't want constant coups, constant strikes, or constants crashes. (Obviously).

What I am trying to point out is that it doesn't matter what the bourgeoisie may think they want. What matters are the requirements of accumulation, profit, and private property.

Why did we have the bank bailouts? Obviously not to create "stability" as the bank bailouts are coincident with the greatest period of instability since WW2. The emergency liquidity facilities, whether deployed in Greece, or from Maiden Lane in NYC (address of the New York Federal Reserve) were deployed simply to preserve the bourgeoisie's property. Creditors were made whole by the actions of the special liquidity vehicles. Had fuck all to do with stability. Make the creditors whole, keep the system upright, until we can pound some more snot out of the workers and turn it into money.

You can call that "stability"-- but the point is, as I thought I made clear enough-- its but an ideological cover for class struggle.

The bourgeoisie want this or want that; sometimes they want strikes, sometimes they don't-- more often that not, they bourgeoisie demonstrate that they'd rather take the strike than accede to the workers demands. It's about power and profit, not about maintaining some sort of "peace" so that accumulation can go on "smoothly,"-- accumulation never goes on smoothly. That's the point: you think the bourgeoisie want, need, some sort of smooth path to accumulate. I say they'll make their path smooth enough, by wrecking what they want to wreck and then grinding it to dust under tank treads, or a big-ass bulldozer. Smooth is in how finely you crunch the bones.

That is different from positing capitalism as some sort of "stability seeking" mode of production; from positing capitalism as requiring, creating, optimizing an or any type of "equilibrium."

The bourgeoisie don't "want" constant coups? So what? What does that matter? Whenever the bourgeoisie need a coup, they create one. When they deposed Aristide, was that in the interest of "stability"? Of course not.

When the Aristide-ied Zelaya in Honduras-- Wake up, Mr. President, time to go-- was that done in the interests of stability?

Capital doesn't want "constant strikes" or "constant crashes" ? Again, it doesn't matter what capital, or the bourgeoisie want. It's what they generate, and where they think they can gain the most.

Impeaching Rousseff is NOT going to bring stability to Brazil. The political instability in Brazil is not the source of the capital flight. The reverse is the case.

Capital doesn't want constant strikes or constant crashes any more than it "wants" constant peace, constant tranquility, constant stability. "Smooth-i-ness" has exactly zero to do with it.

Showing contradictions in a person's political position is not "catching someone out." Showing that someone has joined a political organisation prematurely without apparently fully understanding that political party's ideas is not "catching someone out" Expecting someone to be acquainted with a core basic principles of the party he or she has joined, is not "catching someone out"

Showing that socialism is dependent upon certain pre-conditions being achieved is not offering a paradox. i spent quite a lot of time explaining points to you. In the latest, i gave an example of how workers control cannot be a realistic demand without socialism. I pointed out that state ownership is indeed the objective of SPEW and no amount of honey-coating about workers -control removes the fact that they advocate state ownership and the continuance of the capitalist system, albeit, in a modified form as outlined in an earlier post about Trotskyism.

Accusing me of trying to make you look stupid or being uncharitable or making up straw-men analysis is disrespectful to me and so is also purposefully avoiding the criticisms i have made of the organisation's ideology which you joined and therefore by implication your support for it. I see no evidence of any attempt by you to follow up on points made to you....as you previously said..."you got nothing to add..."

As for your remark that SPEW offers you support, do you mean psychological/moral or political support. If not the former, then the support is built upon weak foundations and will inevitably crumble. If it is the former SPEW is not alone not unique or distinctive. But again i must query the sincerity of this, because you excuse your ignorance by claiming that you don't often attend branch meetings yet interact closely enough with other members to defend from some comments and observations made by others on this thread ...but not close enough to have a political exchange with on what they stand for and how they justify their stance. Not much ideological support there, it seems to me. Helping to educate a new member has always been my experience in every group i became involved with. How else can someone be prepared to make the case if they don't understand where it comes from and why.

As i said in my very first post...SPEW appears to have been very lapse...Or to be jaundiced...they have a policy of keeping new members in the dark until they somehow prove themselves worthy of illumination. That does seem to be the trend with political organisations who blindly give memberships out simply on request. They create a two-tier political party.

I'll leave it at this because this is like arguing with a child.

When the Aristide-ied Zelaya in Honduras-- Wake up, Mr. President, time to go-- was that done in the interests of stability?

Yeah, again, I didn't say anything like this.

Why did we have the bank bailouts? Obviously not to create "stability" as the bank bailouts are coincident with the greatest period of instability since WW2.

Of course they're "coincident" (what a ridiculous word to use - as the banks bailouts just happened to occur after a major meltdown in the financial markets!), they were a direct result of that instability.

For all your proclamations, the bourgeoisie was quite clear in what it was seeking: the banks needed to be bailed out or the instability in the banking markets would spread to the wider global economy. The bailouts were a direct attempt to bring some stability back into capitalism and if you don't believe me, I suggest you read some back issues of the Wall Street Journal.

And thing is - and this seems to be a pattern with you - you're right in your larger points about accumulation and private property, but you're so fixated on trying to defend every single thing you've said, you end of making petty, pedantic arguments, mischaracterizing what others say, and creating strawmen in a sad attempt to save face.

Just look at this:

Make the creditors whole, keep the system upright, until we can pound some more snot out of the workers and turn it into money.

"Keep the system upright" or, in other words, stabilize it?

You can call that "stability"-- but the point is, as I thought I made clear enough-- its but an ideological cover for class struggle.

Yeah, no shit, the capitalist class engages in a constant class struggle and employs all facets of ideology to cover that basic fact. Thanks for that deep insight. Almost as perceptive as your point that accumulation is the driving force behind capitalism.

Anyway, I'll leave the thread to you and Ghost Whistler, your towering intellectual contributions are about as interesting and useful as each others.

P.S. I'm disappointed you couldn't work an avocado analogy into that last post, ya know, just for old time's sake.

I've so far refrained from presenting you with a party-line, GW, preferring to offer a position generally, if not entirely 100% accepted by the various differing politics of Libcom. But now, i think you would benefit from this Socialist Standard article that describes the gulf in basic principles that exists between us and them.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1997/no-1110-february-1997/militant-dishonesty

Ghost Whistler = troll who's pretending to be Simple Simon.

This has got pretty funny.it's set me I mind of that story of the young 'anarchist' that got put up in a Greek anarchist squat, told them they had everything wrong and then called out 'you're breaking the NAP' whilst they gave him a good kicking.

radicalgraffiti

seeks to coopt or undermine campaigns they don't control. Refuses to do anything about abusive men in the party

Those are serious claims and they do not represent the experience I have. So I need more to go on. Are you seriously suggesitng that I just take what you say as truth because you say so? Are you seriously suggesting that if I confront them with these claims, as people seem to want me to do, that I will get anywwhere? Believe it or not, I have no desire to make myself look stupid and that'es exactly what will happen if i say "someone on the internets told me you dismiss rape claims, is this true?" If it IS true what do you think their response will be?

It may be these claims are justified, but without more to go on, for the fourth time of fucking asking: WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?

I also don't recognise the claim they coopt let alone undermine campaigns they don't control. Again, please show me some evidence.

i dont insinuate, i state clearly and plainly that they support abusers not the people assaulted.
what do you mean by proof? you want a fucking video? you've got to deal with the fact that we are not have that kind of evidence, so you've got a choice, believe people who claim to have been raped, sexual assaulted etc, or support rapists. SPEW took the latter option

Until it can be substantiated or at least until something more sufficient can be presented then it is merely an insinuation. You would not tolerate such accusations otherwise, so why should anyone else?

Reddebrek

Your right it isn't difficult at all, that's why I don't understand why so many of your comments were going on and on, and on about whether or not the political party affiliated to a Trotskyist international is itself Trotskyist political party.

I haven't denied they are a troskyist party. I said that I didn't know what it means.

What I have asked for is evidence to back up the claims made.

No, but it does mean that they as an organisation have chosen to remain allied with a party whose senior member is a rapist and who has been aided and abetted by other senior members. Rather than show that it is an organisation that opposes rape and the covering up of rape.

So show me the evidence. All I have are claims.

IU have no desire to remain with a party that dismisses genuine rape claims and treats women that way. But until these claims can be sufficiently substantiated there is nothing else I can do. You want I should go around accusing people of rape/rape dismissal on the basis of what some random voice on the internet said?

Political organisations are not islands, the connections, friends and enemies they make reflect on and influence them. Seriously where exactly do you draw the line? Would it be okay for SPEW (or your org of choice) to be affiliated with a death squad? A gang of cannibals? How about a mad scientist who experiments on humanity? Because you haven't really left yourself much wiggle room here.

Why is this so difficult to understand? I need evidence. How can i possibly pursue this otherwise? Do you think this shoudl be taken seriously or not?

or is this really just an excuse to have a go at someone beacuse of who they are affiliated with?

Noah Fence

This has got pretty funny.it's set me I mind of that story of the young 'anarchist' that got put up in a Greek anarchist squat, told them they had everything wrong and then called out 'you're breaking the NAP' whilst they gave him a good kicking.

Rape accusations are funny?

Crikey GW, you're a bit of work, aren't you.

ajjohnstone

Showing contradictions in a person's political position is not "catching someone out." Showing that someone has joined a political organisation prematurely without apparently fully understanding that political party's ideas is not "catching someone out" Expecting someone to be acquainted with a core basic principles of the party he or she has joined, is not "catching someone out"

Now you're being fallacious because that's not what was said. I made no claim that showing contradictions is catching people out. I questioned your motives in doing so.

I have no problem, perhaps a little wounded pride but that's acceptable, with having it pointed out that the SPEW is not what I think it is. But doing so requires evidence and so far has failed to take into account that the people i've dealt with aren't authoritarian scumbags. So I'm supposed to disassociate myself from these people on the basis of the say so of a random stranger online?

You're not Stefan molyneux are you?

Showing that socialism is dependent upon certain pre-conditions being achieved is not offering a paradox. i spent quite a lot of time explaining points to you. In the latest, i gave an example of how workers control cannot be a realistic demand without socialism. I pointed out that state ownership is indeed the objective of SPEW and no amount of honey-coating about workers -control removes the fact that they advocate state ownership and the continuance of the capitalist system, albeit, in a modified form as outlined in an earlier post about Trotskyism.

Again, fallacious. I never made that claim. I simply pointed out that the following statement is paradoxical:

socialism cannot exist without workers taking control of the means of production, and workers cannot take control of the means of production without socialism.

Please explain how that is not a paradox.

Accusing me of trying to make you look stupid or being uncharitable or making up straw-men analysis is disrespectful to me and so is also purposefully avoiding the criticisms i have made of the organisation's ideology which you joined and therefore by implication your support for it. I see no evidence of any attempt by you to follow up on points made to you....as you previously said..."you got nothing to add..."

What straw man did i put up?

Accusations seem to be acceptable on here so I'm not sure what the problem is. If you feel that me pointing out your behaviour is uncharitable is disrespectful then there's a simple solution: don't behave uncharitably.

But again i must query the sincerity of this, because you excuse your ignorance by claiming that you don't often attend branch meetings yet interact closely enough with other members to defend from some comments and observations made by others on this thread ...but not close enough to have a political exchange with on what they stand for and how they justify their stance. Not much ideological support there, it seems to me. Helping to educate a new member has always been my experience in every group i became involved with. How else can someone be prepared to make the case if they don't understand where it comes from and why.

I don't attend branch meetings because I don't have the means to attend those mettings. I do meet on a semi regular basis the seniour member of that branch and discuss issues and that person has been very supportive. Am I to throw that away because the internets says so? I was even able to publish an article in their newspaper. Given that I'm interested in writing, i thought that was a good thing.

If you are going to accuse me of lying when I say this person has been supportive then unless you can prove that there's not much else to be said.

As i said in my very first post...SPEW appears to have been very lapse...Or to be jaundiced...they have a policy of keeping new members in the dark until they somehow prove themselves worthy of illumination. That does seem to be the trend with political organisations who blindly give memberships out simply on request. They create a two-tier political party.

You don't think this to be a rather hyperbolic claim then? This kind of exaggerated language, making them sound like some cult helps? Perhaps you could evidence this.

Noah Fence

Crikey GW, you're a bit of work, aren't you.

What does that mean?

C

Anyway, I'll leave the thread...

Finally, Chili contributes something meaningful and important

Skipping over the 'Ghost in the libcom machine' it seems to me that Chilli and S.Artesian are at least to some extent arguing at cross purposes, though S.A. makes most recently some significant points of value to anyone else trying to follow the original thread of this discussion, it being a case of the dominant capitalist powers seeking a measure of 'market stability' on their terms but due to the inherent underlying nature of capitalism it being a case of they may 'seek' but are unable to achieve!

Noah Fence

Yeah, it's a shame. Difficulty in grasping new ideas is fair enough, I mean, the saturation of misinformation takes a good deal of breaking through, but add arrogance and a reactionary victim complex to that difficulty and you're backing a loser. For now at least I'm out of any conversations with GW.

Same here, it's clearly pointless having a 'discussion'. I notice that GW is on here early in the morning, during the day and late into the night aswell- I've got things to do.

"The Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) is an international association of Trotskyist political parties." -Wikipedia

GW, as you see, i have now linked to my Party's critique of SPEW. Just one article among many over the years. Use its search facility for more of the same.

"I haven't denied they are a troskyist party. I said that I didn't know what it means. What I have asked for is evidence to back up the claims made."

I have explained what trotskyism is to you, so now you know what some people believe it means. But you decline to comment on that definition even though i did add my own commentary to the definition which you also decline to comment upon.

I don't believe you wish a reading list of books and articles offering the evidence supporting a critical analysis of Trotskyism or SPEW's history. However, i did recommended Anarchist FAQ for further information and now i give you the link
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app3

You accused me of a straw dog argument and that was what i was referring to, you misread the post. i never accused you of offering one.

i didn't use hyperbole. If anything i am guilty of understating the nefarious role of Trotsky, Trotskyism and SPEW.

If you are genuine in search of knowledge which now others also suspect you aren't, you have enough reading udy and to do, and it is also time now to direct questions to the organisation you are a member of to learn more about them. Perhaps you can return telling us what you asked and post their answers to your questions. If you don't know what trotskyism is or its influence on the theory and practice of SPEW, it is now for them to explain.

I am no longer willing to engage with you until i see some evidence that you are prepared to further your own education. i don't believe it is helpful to spoon-feed you information.

red and black riot

Noah Fence

Yeah, it's a shame. Difficulty in grasping new ideas is fair enough, I mean, the saturation of misinformation takes a good deal of breaking through, but add arrogance and a reactionary victim complex to that difficulty and you're backing a loser. For now at least I'm out of any conversations with GW.

Same here, it's clearly pointless having a 'discussion'. I notice that GW is on here early in the morning, during the day and late into the night aswell- I've got things to do.

fuck off and do them then you arrogant cunt.

ajjohnstone

GW, as you see, i have now linked to my Party's critique of SPEW. Just one article among many over the years. Use its search facility for more of the same.

That's begging the question about your own party. Are they trustworthy? are they biased?

I have explained what trotskyism is to you, so now you know what some people believe it means. But you decline to comment on that definition even though i did add my own commentary to the definition which you also decline to comment upon.

firstly that definition, by your own admission, isn't universal, so we have already have a problem accepting that there is a universal definition of trotskyism, never mind that it's a bad thing.

assuming that it is, how does it relate to the SPEW? Frankly I don't even see the relevance of the term. Calling people Trots is using an obscurantist phrase that's decades out of date as the man lived a century ago in a world unlike ours. He's long cold in the ground. So what does it actually mean to say they are a 'trotskyite' party?

Claims have been made, which seem more relevant than silly labels (and i apply that to not just trotskyites either), so lets look at those. A claim has been made they have a bad attitude toward rape, so far unsubstantiated. A claim has been made they are authoritarian and coopt movements/actions, but again this is not my experience and so it remains unsubstantiated. There is an accusation, from within your own definition, they make demands of the capitalists they know won't get fulfilled in order to sow dissatisfaction within the working class, in order to persuade them to their cause. Ok, if this is true, and i've no idea how you'd substantiate this, so what? THe better question is: are their demands reasonable?

It means nothing to say they are Trotskyite without something to show how this is a bad thing and that what they are doing is wrong. I will concede that choosing to also call themselves the Socialist Party was a stupid idea. I don't know why that happened, nor have i seen anything to explain this.

I don't believe you wish a reading list of books and articles offering the evidence supporting a critical analysis of Trotskyism or SPEW's history. However, i did recommended Anarchist FAQ for further information and now i give you the link
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app3

Thanks.

i didn't use hyperbole. If anything i am guilty of understating the nefarious role of Trotsky, Trotskyism and SPEW.

Without evidence, that statement is meaningless.

If you are genuine in search of knowledge which now others also suspect you aren't, you have enough reading udy and to do, and it is also time now to direct questions to the organisation you are a member of to learn more about them. Perhaps you can return telling us what you asked and post their answers to your questions. If you don't know what trotskyism is or its influence on the theory and practice of SPEW, it is now for them to explain.

I don't care what others suspect. I was initially attacked by someone who did not know me or my views and didn't bother to ask before levelling accusations at me. That person's behaviour has gone unchecked while I have been attacked further. What does that say about those people?

It is not time to direct questions until i have something more substantial to go on. You know very well that if i ask questions abour rumour insinutation and unsubstantiated claims I will get precisely nowhere. If you are advocating that then not only are your motives questionable then so is your character. I do not understand why people have decided to avoid providing that evidence or how anyone in their right mind can think it acceptable to level accusations of the seriousness of excusing rape without evidence. I find that disgusting. That sort of thing can wreck people's lives ffs.

Lmao.

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

seeks to coopt or undermine campaigns they don't control. Refuses to do anything about abusive men in the party

Those are serious claims and they do not represent the experience I have. So I need more to go on. Are you seriously suggesitng that I just take what you say as truth because you say so? Are you seriously suggesting that if I confront them with these claims, as people seem to want me to do, that I will get anywwhere? Believe it or not, I have no desire to make myself look stupid and that'es exactly what will happen if i say "someone on the internets told me you dismiss rape claims, is this true?" If it IS true what do you think their response will be?

It may be these claims are justified, but without more to go on, for the fourth time of fucking asking: WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?

I also don't recognise the claim they coopt let alone undermine campaigns they don't control. Again, please show me some evidence.

i'm confident that most other people who have had to interact with the socialist party politically will have had similar experiences, start a thread and ask if you want

Ghost Whistler

i dont insinuate, i state clearly and plainly that they support abusers not the people assaulted.
what do you mean by proof? you want a fucking video? you've got to deal with the fact that we are not have that kind of evidence, so you've got a choice, believe people who claim to have been raped, sexual assaulted etc, or support rapists. SPEW took the latter option

Until it can be substantiated or at least until something more sufficient can be presented then it is merely an insinuation. You would not tolerate such accusations otherwise, so why should anyone else?

i'd expect any political organisation i was involved with to take allegations like this seriously and not brush them under the carpet like the SPEW have done.
it doesn't surprise me that they did this because they are hierarchical organisation that values some members much more than others, and because lots of the women i know who where involved commented on there sexism.

And regarding what you say about how they don't seem authoritarian to you, what you've got to understand is an organisation being authoritarian doesn't mean all its members are arseholes at all times, an organisation is not the sum of its members, what is being claimed is not all members are dickheads, but that the organisation works in a certain way

Ghost Whistler

That you have proved yourself here to be such an utter asshole kind of offers an explanation as to why you find anarchists to be unfriendly to you. Maybe you should just toddle back to your notoriously rape apologetic trot friends.

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

Noah Fence

Yeah, it's a shame. Difficulty in grasping new ideas is fair enough, I mean, the saturation of misinformation takes a good deal of breaking through, but add arrogance and a reactionary victim complex to that difficulty and you're backing a loser. For now at least I'm out of any conversations with GW.

Same here, it's clearly pointless having a 'discussion'. I notice that GW is on here early in the morning, during the day and late into the night aswell- I've got things to do.

fuck off and do them then you arrogant cunt.

Lol!

I'm not sure about Chili's remark that capital needs stability. I think capitalists need it, but I'm not so sure about the system itself.
For example the typical business grows by creating or entering existing markets and as a rule argues against trade restrictions etc until it is big enough to benefit from them, then it argues in favour.
I can't name names but I've read a few articles saying the problem is that because the system is afraid of a crash it has instead just spent huge sums delaying one (and making it worse) when in fact a crash is what is needed to stimulate growth.
As long as there is exchange and employment capitalism is fairly safe even if individual capitlaists and their capital are not. (Blockbuster video's assets for example)
It's been long acknowledged by most capitalists that because they are short-sighted and profit-chasing they need governments to rein them in and apply a measure of control (making sure they don't poison everyone or starve us all into infertility) but those capitlaists wll still spend huge amounts to avoid or warp those regulations to increase their profits.

........................do everyone a favour

GW has been a rude, disrespectful asshole with his fingers lodged firmly in his ears but that is a shitty comment. I'd take that one back if I were you.

Edit: Ha! Beat me to it! Nice. Offending remark removed!

Noah Fence

........................do everyone a favour

GW has been a rude, disrespectful asshole with his fingers lodged firmly in his ears but that is a shitty comment. I'd take that one back if I were you.

Edit: Ha! Beat me to it! Nice. Offending remark removed!

So i'm attacked for being a member of SPEW by an irrational thug who can't defend his abuse, but that's tolerated by the admins who seem to think it's ok to attack certain people.

Then I'm subject to an ad hom about the fact I post a lot.

Then i'm told I'm not listening to people, despite directly responding to their posts.

red and black riot

Ghost Whistler

red and black riot

Noah Fence

Yeah, it's a shame. Difficulty in grasping new ideas is fair enough, I mean, the saturation of misinformation takes a good deal of breaking through, but add arrogance and a reactionary victim complex to that difficulty and you're backing a loser. For now at least I'm out of any conversations with GW.

Same here, it's clearly pointless having a 'discussion'. I notice that GW is on here early in the morning, during the day and late into the night aswell- I've got things to do.

fuck off and do them then you arrogant cunt.

Lol!

You think nothing of hospitalising coppers, but somehow think it's ok to insult people?

Is this your idea of class war then? To be a hypocrit?

Fleur

Ghost Whistler

That you have proved yourself here to be such an utter asshole kind of offers an explanation as to why you find anarchists to be unfriendly to you. Maybe you should just toddle back to your notoriously rape apologetic trot friends.

If it was notorious there'd be evidence. Since i've asked for evidence a thousand times while conceding the possibility that the claim is true and showing due respect to the alleged victim, I find it a bit rich you to behave like this.

You're the one making accusations about people, none of the people i've met in the SPEW have behaved like this. That should tell you something.

Noah Fence

Lmao.

So again, it's funny that someone can be accused of dismissing rape claims?

I'm not sure about Chili's remark that capital needs stability.

It's not that big a deal either way - and I don't really want to get into it - but I didn't say need, I said seeks.

radicalgraffiti

i'm confident that most other people who have had to interact with the socialist party politically will have had similar experiences, start a thread and ask if you want

So there are multiple instances of the dismissal of rape by the SPEW? Well that should make the job of providing evidence even easier.

And yet noone has done so. Or even tried. In fact my requests for evidence have been treated with exactly the same scorn you claim from the SPEW themselves.

i'd expect any political organisation i was involved with to take allegations like this seriously and not brush them under the carpet like the SPEW have done.

As would I.

And when you can show me evidence that's the case I will certainly bring it up. Until then I have nothing to go on and any attempt, as you full well understand, to broach this subject will get me nowhere. Likely it will setback any further attempt in the future shoudl more evidence be forthcoming.

it doesn't surprise me that they did this because they are hierarchical organisation that values some members much more than others, and because lots of the women i know who where involved commented on there sexism.

Admittedly my experience is limited and I'm not a woman but this is not my experience. So again, what do you suggest i do? Do you seriusly think any complaint i raise, without sufficient evidence will get me anywhere?

That may well be true, but until it can be substantiated it cannot be addressed. You know this full well so why do you dismiss it?

I suspect you aren't really serious about this.

And regarding what you say about how they don't seem authoritarian to you, what you've got to understand is an organisation being authoritarian doesn't mean all its members are arseholes at all times, an organisation is not the sum of its members, what is being claimed is not all members are dickheads, but that the organisation works in a certain way

Irrelevant as to the question at hand: where is the evidence?

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Chilli Sauce

I'm not sure about Chili's remark that capital needs stability.

It's not that big a deal either way - and I don't really want to get into it - but I didn't say need, I said seeks.

My mistake, obviously after GW's embodiment of tl:dr I wasn't paying enough attention.

radicalgraffiti

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Who are you talking to?

No worries, man! I thought the rest of your post was really good, BTW.

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Who are you talking to?

you, you say things like this

I do meet on a semi regular basis the seniour member of that branch and discuss issues and that person has been very supportive.

but where is the evidence? why should anyone take you seriously if you cant provide evidence?

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Who are you talking to?

you, you say things like this

I do meet on a semi regular basis the seniour member of that branch and discuss issues and that person has been very supportive.

but where is the evidence? why should anyone take you seriously if you cant provide evidence?

Oh so you were accusing me of lying, which is not something i've done to anyone else, and you are demanding evidence of...?

What have i lied about?

Are you seriously equating meeting up with and talking to someone with a claim about rape?

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Who are you talking to?

you, you say things like this

I do meet on a semi regular basis the seniour member of that branch and discuss issues and that person has been very supportive.

but where is the evidence? why should anyone take you seriously if you cant provide evidence?

Oh so you were accusing me of lying, which is not something i've done to anyone else, and you are demanding evidence of...?

What have i lied about?

Are you seriously equating meeting up with and talking to someone with a claim about rape?

you claim that happened but where is the evidence?

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Who are you talking to?

you, you say things like this

I do meet on a semi regular basis the seniour member of that branch and discuss issues and that person has been very supportive.

but where is the evidence? why should anyone take you seriously if you cant provide evidence?

Oh so you were accusing me of lying, which is not something i've done to anyone else, and you are demanding evidence of...?

What have i lied about?

Are you seriously equating meeting up with and talking to someone with a claim about rape?

you claim that happened but where is the evidence?

So rape is not really an issue for you then??

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

Ghost Whistler

radicalgraffiti

why don't you provide evidence instead of calling everyone else lies

Who are you talking to?

you, you say things like this

I do meet on a semi regular basis the seniour member of that branch and discuss issues and that person has been very supportive.

but where is the evidence? why should anyone take you seriously if you cant provide evidence?

Oh so you were accusing me of lying, which is not something i've done to anyone else, and you are demanding evidence of...?

What have i lied about?

Are you seriously equating meeting up with and talking to someone with a claim about rape?

you claim that happened but where is the evidence?

So rape is not really an issue for you then??

Provide evidence for your slander

radicalgraffiti

Provide evidence for your slander

What slander?

Ghost Whistler

Noah Fence

Lmao.

So again, it's funny that someone can be accused of dismissing rape claims?

No, it's not funny. Rape is never funny. Got it?
Let's be crystal clear here - I was laughing at your miserable, negative, closed ears, approach to Internet debating, especially in the light of your aspersions that anarchos aren't very friendly. I have personally been very friendly and others have engaged with you in a friendly manner else-wear but you continually try to get people's backs up and behave in exactly the way you accuse others of.
Be honest, you're purpose here is not to learn about anarchism, is it. You are here to discredit it and you're making an amazingly poor job of it.
You are a particular type of troll, namely, a very unfunny one. Trolling 101: if you're gonna do it at all, do it with a bit of wit and humour. If you can't do that, get back under your bridge until you've learnt how. Either that, or go and be the obligatory misery guts at your local lefty circle jerk club. I couldn't possibly give less of a shit either way.
All that said, if you ever do get truly interested in Libcom politics you'd still be welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Just don't be an asshole next time.

It is not time to direct questions until i have something more substantial to go on. You know very well that if i ask questions abour rumour insinutation and unsubstantiated claims I will get precisely nowhere. If you are advocating that then not only are your motives questionable then so is your character. I do not understand why people have decided to avoid providing that evidence or how anyone in their right mind can think it acceptable to level accusations of the seriousness of excusing rape without evidence. I find that disgusting. That sort of thing can wreck people's lives ffs.

Ghost Whistler, this is argumentation based on straight up rape culture. Fuck that someone got raped! Someone's reputation is on the line! Never mind that false rape accusations almost never happens (occurs in about 1-2% of cases iirc), meaning that most accusations are fucking true. The right ethical thing to do is to believe the survivor because making rape accusations is not something people do willy nilly precisely because they know they won't be believed or will be actively hounded.

Silly me, I initially thought you were actually concerned about the rape accusation and thus I provided my comments in good faith. Now I see that you don't really fucking care, that you don't have integrity or a political backbone.

This is actually the worst comment:

GW

That may well be true, but until it can be substantiated it cannot be addressed. You know this full well so why do you dismiss it?

Just fucking wow. Rape culture 101 right there.

Noah Fence

No, it's not funny. Rape is never funny. Got it?

And yet you were making light of the fact I wanted evidence to back up serious allegations that have been triviliased by the very people making them.

Let's be crystal clear here - I was laughing at your miserable, negative, closed ears, approach to Internet debating, especially in the light of your aspersions that anarchos aren't very friendly. I have personally been very friendly and others have engaged with you in a friendly manner else-wear but you continually try to get people's backs up and behave in exactly the way you accuse others of.

This is friendly to you is it? Being attacked is acceptable to you is it? I don't recall you taking the same tone with the guy that accused me of being a 'pacifist trot'. But that's ok because he's one of your own.

You don't know how to debate. I asked nothing more than for those making claims to meet their burden of proof, and the reason I did so was so that I could take those accusations with at least some credibility to the party. So either you don't actually want me to do that, or you're just blinded by your own bias. Either way at this point it's just trolling.

Be honest, you're purpose here is not to learn about anarchism, is it. You are here to discredit it and you're making an amazingly poor job of it.

And that's another claim, made without evidence. If you treat anyone who wants proof of accusations as serious as rape like this then you are nothing more than a hypocrit.

You are a particular type of troll, namely, a very unfunny one. Trolling 101: if you're gonna do it at all, do it with a bit of wit and humour. If you can't do that, get back under your bridge until you've learnt how. Either that, or go and be the obligatory misery guts at your local lefty circle jerk club. I couldn't possibly give less of a shit either way.
All that said, if you ever do get truly interested in Libcom politics you'd still be welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Just don't be an asshole next time.

This is just your own inadequacy talking.

Khawaga

Ghost Whistler, this is argumentation based on straight up rape culture. Fuck that someone got raped! Someone's reputation is on the line! Never mind that false rape accusations almost never happens (occurs in about 1-2% of cases iirc), meaning that most accusations are fucking true. The right ethical thing to do is to believe the survivor because making rape accusations is not something people do willy nilly precisely because they know they won't be believed or will be actively hounded.

Silly me, I initially thought you were actually concerned about the rape accusation and thus I provided my comments in good faith. Now I see that you don't really fucking care, that you don't have integrity or a political backbone.

You have absolutely and deliberately misrepresented what I have said.

Let's try again, hopefully this time you'll actually pay attention because this is serious; making accusations about people is serious. So is rape. These are both serious.

It has been put to me that a now former member of the SPEW was raped by another member and that the party dismissed her claim. These are two very serious accusations and the only evidence put forward comes from the victim's own blog. I have nothing more to go on.

Now please tell me what I am meant to do with that.

Your protestations about rape culture and your insinuation that I'm victim blaming are as irrelevant as they are disgusting. Grow the fuck up and treat this with the seriousness you seem to indicate it deserves. The fact that you seem to think I endorse rape culture and victim blaming and the general mistreatment of survivors just for asking for some evidence - when i've already and repeatedly made it clear that I treat the claim seriously despite it being made anonymously by someone random online - makes you look like a desperate mealy mouthed attention seeker.

Well GW, you have staying power, I'll give you that. You won't get a rise out of me though, you're silly disingenuous nonsense is less than the dust beneath my chariot wheels. Have a nice day!

You want evidence to back up allegations? What do you want? Someone to have snap chatted it? A full written statement to the witnessing of rape? Someone present you with DNA evidence at the next meeting? Apparent believing the survivor isn't enough. Being told again and again by people who know and have been there that sexual assault is endemic in left politics and the way it is treated is appalling clearly not sufficient. You seem to fit in with the culture of this organization already.

Otoh, if you find yourself with time on your hands, Chet Evans is looking for a few more good blokes who are overly concerned with the reputions of rapists.

Let's be crystal clear here - I was laughing at your miserable, negative, closed ears, approach to Internet debating, especially in the light of your aspersions that anarchos aren't very friendly. I have personally been very friendly and others have engaged with you in a friendly manner else-wear but you continually try to get people's backs up and behave in exactly the way you accuse others of.
This is friendly to you is it? Being attacked is acceptable to you is it? I don't recall you taking the same tone with the guy that accused me of being a 'pacifist trot'. But that's ok because he's one of your own.

No, that wasn't being friendly, you're way past that now. What was being friendly was me, after reading you're whining about you political isolation, reaching out and offering to either give you a lift the the Bristol Anarchist Bookfair or giving you the money to pay for your fare even though you'd previously shown evidence of being a wanker. Remember that? I also called someone out for suggesting you go and kill yourself. Even now, after all your bullshit, if you changed your attitude I'd do exactly the same again. That's being friendly. Open your eyes you daft bastard, you're going nowhere with this.

Fleur

You want evidence to back up allegations? What do you want? Someone to have snap chatted it? A full written statement to the witnessing of rape? Someone present you with DNA evidence at the next meeting? Apparent believing the survivor isn't enough. Being told again and again by people who know and have been there that sexual assault is endemic in left politics and the way it is treated is appalling clearly not sufficient. You seem to fit in with the culture of this organization already.

Otoh, if you find yourself with time on your hands, Chet Evans is looking for a few more good blokes who are overly concerned with the reputions of rapists.

I haven't made specific demands on the nature of evidence. I've simply asked for something to substantiate the claim YOU made.

You seem to be saying that because rape is so vicious and brutal - which I do not deny - that the accusation must be true. No need to investigate? I thought you were calling for the victim's story to be investigated, yet when I ask for more to go on so I can discuss it with the party I am attacked.

Explain.

Noah Fence

Let's be crystal clear here - I was laughing at your miserable, negative, closed ears, approach to Internet debating, especially in the light of your aspersions that anarchos aren't very friendly. I have personally been very friendly and others have engaged with you in a friendly manner else-wear but you continually try to get people's backs up and behave in exactly the way you accuse others of.
This is friendly to you is it? Being attacked is acceptable to you is it? I don't recall you taking the same tone with the guy that accused me of being a 'pacifist trot'. But that's ok because he's one of your own.

No, that wasn't being friendly, you're way past that now. What was being friendly was me, after reading you're whining about you political isolation, reaching out and offering to either give you a lift the the Bristol Anarchist Bookfair or giving you the money to pay for your fare even though you'd previously shown evidence of being a wanker. Remember that? I also called someone out for suggesting you go and kill yourself. Even now, after all your bullshit, if you changed your attitude I'd do exactly the same again. That's being friendly. Open your eyes you daft bastard, you're going nowhere with this.

So now you justify yourself by using gestures offered and received in good faith as weapons in this conversation. Classy,

Fucking Christ, 150 posts maybe about this? Somebody get me a cheeseburger.... with avocados.

You have absolutely and deliberately misrepresented what I have said.

No, I have interpreted what you have said. And your line about "needing the evidence", "you can destroy's a man's life with such allegations" and etc. are things that people say because of rape culture. So not a misrepresentation, but an interpretation based on how most people who live in a rape culture reacts to rape.

Let's try again, hopefully this time you'll actually pay attention because this is serious; making accusations about people is serious. So is rape. These are both serious.

Yes, I know. If you'd read my posts you should have seen that I've actually got experience with supporting a rape survivor against my own (ex) organization. Practically the only thing I've paid attention to in this thread is about rape so I've read your words carefully.

It has been put to me that a now former member of the SPEW was raped by another member and that the party dismissed her claim. These are two very serious accusations and the only evidence put forward comes from the victim's own blog. I have nothing more to go on.

Now please tell me what I am meant to do with that.

Believe the survivor. It's the ethical thing to do, and 99% of accusations are true. And then you raise this as an issue in your organization. Figure out how you should actually deal with it. Otherwise you are just putting fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA.

Your protestations about rape culture and your insinuation that I'm victim blaming are as irrelevant as they are disgusting. Grow the fuck up and treat this with the seriousness you seem to indicate it deserves. The fact that you seem to think I endorse rape culture and victim blaming and the general mistreatment of survivors just for asking for some evidence - when i've already and repeatedly made it clear that I treat the claim seriously despite it being made anonymously by someone random online - makes you look like a desperate mealy mouthed attention seeker.

I have not insinuated that you are victim blaming. At all. For you to do that you first of all have to believe that the rape happened and then that it was the survivor's fault. As far as I can tell, you haven't done that. From what I can gather you're not even sure that it happened as you don't have evidence.

And you're not getting it: this "asking for evidence" thing is taken out of rape culture. Not doing anything about it is taken straight out of rape culture. Throwing a fit when people say more can be done is straight out of rape culture. It is perfectly possible to do all of this even if think rape is horrible violence. Even if you're a feminist. It's the same with racism. It's all in us and we all behave accordingly sometimes.

The thing is: you're not treating the accusation seriously enough if you are reluctant to even talk about it with other people in your organization. That's just ignoring it. And ignoring it for what?

makes you look like a desperate mealy mouthed attention seeker.

I don't see how any of my comments make me into an attention seeking unless you're quite the narcissist.

Khawaga

Yes, I know. If you'd read my posts you should have seen that I've actually got experience with supporting a rape survivor against my own (ex) organization. Practically the only thing I've paid attention to in this thread is about rape so I've read your words carefully.

Not carefully enough since you seem to think that I'm talking about the survivor. I have no idea who the survivor is or anything about her. I'm not talking about her experience, for which I can do nothing. I don't know them or the persons involved. All I can do is address the issue of whether her claim is being investigated and seeing as how i've repeatedly called for assistance in doing that assuming that Im not taking her seriously is fatuous. Just because I don't immediately grant that it's true on the basis of a blog doesn't mean that I do not take it seriously nor that I think the party shouldn't either.

Believe the survivor. It's the ethical thing to do, and 99% of accusations are true. And then you raise this as an issue in your organization. Figure out how you should actually deal with it. Otherwise you are just putting fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA.

How can I possibly raise what amounts to an anonymous internet accusation and expect to get anywhere? If this is indeed true and there is dismissal going on then they are certainly not going to listen to that. This is why I have repeatedly called for more to go on. That you, a professed expert, cannot understand this should set alarm bells ringing, and yet I am repeatedly attacked and belittled for doing so. How do you envisage such a conversation going? How can they investigate something that i know nothing about, even the blog is anonymous (and no i am not asking).

Gadzooks! This is actually pretty amazing. The most amazing thing of all is that anyone is bothering. Let's face it, we're the losers here. GW, take your crown - you have triumphed!

Noah Fence wrote:

Let's face it, we're the losers here. GW, take your crown - you have triumphed

It's similar to how Hitler never lost the war, having gorged himself on the blood of millions, on a much smaller aand nerdier scale.

Chilli Sauce wrote:

It's not that big a deal either way - and I don't really want to get into it - but I didn't say need, I said seeks.

Going right back to the enclosures, capitalism has never sought stability, mainly because it relies on the entanglement of human cooperation within its own antagonistic abstractions, an alienation which prevents us from controlling the conditions of our existence, and which is a primary source of the prevalent chaos of social reproduction.

The idea that the bank bailouts and austerity are aspects of the usual permanently reproduced primitive accumulation, which is the permanent condition and basis of capitalism's existence, makes a lot of sense to me. They represent just the latest wave of separation of new populations from the means of production and subsistence, as well as the reproduction of the wage relation in the already 'established' capitalist relations.

Capitalism is unstable at its core.

condition and basis of capitalism's existence, makes a lot of sense to me. They represent just the latest wave of separation of new populations from the means of production and subsistence, as well as the reproduction of the wage relation in the already 'established' capitalist relations.

This^^. I think in many ways the latest iterations of "capitalist development"= the breaking of the "iron rice bowl" in China, destruction of the ejidos in Mexico (which began before NAFTA, but certainly received a boost with NAFTA); the EU fishing fleet "scrubbing" the seas of the coasts of Africa, the proliferation of SEZs (special enterprise zones; maquilladoras); the incredible migratory movement of populations from countryside to city, particularly young women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America EDIT: and we cannot leave out the destruction of the former Soviet Union, the decimation of living standards there, and the forced dispossession of women in the "Natasha trade," is precisely and completely described in that phrase: " the latest wave of separation of new populations from the means of production and subsistence, as well as the reproduction of the wage relation."

In fact, I'm going to steal that line (although I will definitely give factvalue full credit for expressing the process so succinctly.

This kind of discussion going on in a thread called 'Cameron's Referendum' really makes it significantly better.

meaning that most accusations are fucking true. The right ethical thing to do is to believe the survivor because making rape accusations is not something people do willy nilly precisely because they know they won't be believed or will be actively hounded.

Ethics involves principles, and there is no principle which involves believing an abstract rape survivor who might, as you say, be lying. Such a principle would, as you also note, often also lead to being wrong about it. In which sense it is among other things a miscarriage of justice.

Most rape accusations do involve sex in some way, though, that is true.

Otoh, if you find yourself with time on your hands, Chet Evans is looking for a few more good blokes who are overly concerned with the reputions of rapists.

It's possible you mean 'Ched.' It's like 'Chad,' except that instead of marrying Sarah Roemer, he goes out and rapes people.

Obviously rape isn't a part of the Party's platform, and hence it being expected to substitute for jurisprudence is a bit glib.

You seem to be saying that because rape is so vicious and brutal - which I do not deny - that the accusation must be true.

While evidently a crime being held to be shocking and brutal is a reason why people might be accused of it, it might be misleading. A Party can usually hold murderers or even ex-soldiers with significantly less problems.

And, of course, without the same assumptions being made there.

So again, it's funny that someone can be accused of dismissing rape claims?

This thread lacks sufficient evidence.

Noah Fence

........................do everyone a favour

GW has been a rude, disrespectful asshole with his fingers lodged firmly in his ears but that is a shitty comment. I'd take that one back if I were you.

Edit: Ha! Beat me to it! Nice. Offending remark removed!

I said that in the heat of the moment and thought it too strong a comment afterwards so I edited and changed my comment.

Noah Fence

Gadzooks! This is actually pretty amazing. The most amazing thing of all is that anyone is bothering. Let's face it, we're the losers here. GW, take your crown - you have triumphed!

Absolutely. Certain people on here have way more patience than me but I can't believe they have continued to bother with GW all that time- and has it got them anywhere?. Since earlier today I've been to one of my jobs, done some shopping, had some food, gone off to my next job in a different town, done that for several hours, come back, had some more food and some wine- and you people have still been attempting, fruitlessly, to have a proper discussion with GW- yes, it is amazing.

Zeronowhere

Yes I meant Ched but I was typing on my phone in the bathroom at work and made a typo.
What's your excuse for writing bollocks?

Well this thread sure became something.

By the way is SPEW still affiliated with the Socialist Party in Australia? Because they've also been exposed for covering up sexual abuse by a senior member.

https://louisproyect.org/2016/02/23/mass-resignation-from-australian-section-of-peter-taaffes-cwi-over-sexual-abuse/

I think so since the Australian party is still part of the CWI like the Swedish one.

Fleur

Zeronowhere

Yes I meant Ched but I was typing on my phone in the bathroom at work and made a typo.
What's your excuse for writing bollocks?

Punk's not dead.

Punk's not dead.

Yes dear, it really is. Move on.

Zeronowhere

This kind of discussion going on in a thread called 'Cameron's Referendum' really makes it significantly better.

meaning that most accusations are fucking true. The right ethical thing to do is to believe the survivor because making rape accusations is not something people do willy nilly precisely because they know they won't be believed or will be actively hounded.

Ethics involves principles, and there is no principle which involves believing an abstract rape survivor who might, as you say, be lying. Such a principle would, as you also note, often also lead to being wrong about it. In which sense it is among other things a miscarriage of justice.

Most rape accusations do involve sex in some way, though, that is true.

Otoh, if you find yourself with time on your hands, Chet Evans is looking for a few more good blokes who are overly concerned with the reputions of rapists.

It's possible you mean 'Ched.' It's like 'Chad,' except that instead of marrying Sarah Roemer, he goes out and rapes people.

Obviously rape isn't a part of the Party's platform, and hence it being expected to substitute for jurisprudence is a bit glib.

You seem to be saying that because rape is so vicious and brutal - which I do not deny - that the accusation must be true.

While evidently a crime being held to be shocking and brutal is a reason why people might be accused of it, it might be misleading. A Party can usually hold murderers or even ex-soldiers with significantly less problems.

And, of course, without the same assumptions being made there.

So again, it's funny that someone can be accused of dismissing rape claims?

This thread lacks sufficient evidence.

You chat shit.

factvalue

Zeronowhere

This kind of discussion going on in a thread called 'Cameron's Referendum' really makes it significantly better.

meaning that most accusations are fucking true. The right ethical thing to do is to believe the survivor because making rape accusations is not something people do willy nilly precisely because they know they won't be believed or will be actively hounded.

Ethics involves principles, and there is no principle which involves believing an abstract rape survivor who might, as you say, be lying. Such a principle would, as you also note, often also lead to being wrong about it. In which sense it is among other things a miscarriage of justice.

Most rape accusations do involve sex in some way, though, that is true.

Otoh, if you find yourself with time on your hands, Chet Evans is looking for a few more good blokes who are overly concerned with the reputions of rapists.

It's possible you mean 'Ched.' It's like 'Chad,' except that instead of marrying Sarah Roemer, he goes out and rapes people.

Obviously rape isn't a part of the Party's platform, and hence it being expected to substitute for jurisprudence is a bit glib.

You seem to be saying that because rape is so vicious and brutal - which I do not deny - that the accusation must be true.

While evidently a crime being held to be shocking and brutal is a reason why people might be accused of it, it might be misleading. A Party can usually hold murderers or even ex-soldiers with significantly less problems.

And, of course, without the same assumptions being made there.

So again, it's funny that someone can be accused of dismissing rape claims?

This thread lacks sufficient evidence.

You chat shit.

The different possible intonations really make this post. If only such abstractions could post, then.

Zeronowhere

So again, it's funny that someone can be accused of dismissing rape claims?

This thread lacks sufficient evidence.[/quote]

That was a question; it was asked twice in response to comments that trivialised my request for information pertaining to the claim that the party were not taking a rape accusation within their ranks seriously. In both instance no answer was given. I'm not sure what other conclusion one can draw.

I also asked for evidence the SPEW coopted efforts and activities as well. So far, again, none has been provided.

All these claims may well be true, but the deliberate witholding of evidence from individuals here who clearly have a beef with SPEW isn't productive at all. But I don't think they care about helping another person, more about scoring points.

Reddebrek

Well this thread sure became something.

By the way is SPEW still affiliated with the Socialist Party in Australia? Because they've also been exposed for covering up sexual abuse by a senior member.

https://louisproyect.org/2016/02/23/mass-resignation-from-australian-section-of-peter-taaffes-cwi-over-sexual-abuse/

I think so since the Australian party is still part of the CWI like the Swedish one.

So it's taen several pages and a great deal of ego to reach a point where, now, it seems more evidence is being put forward regarding claims about the SPEW, albeit indirectly.

However one of the comments, number 4, goes into some depth that casts doubt on the claim. Who is right here?

Ghost Whistler

That was a question; it was asked twice in response to comments

Sure, I was agreeing in part with the spirit in which the question was asked.

Just to clarify.

Ghost Whistler

So it's taen several pages and a great deal of ego to reach a point where, now, it seems more evidence is being put forward regarding claims about the SPEW, albeit indirectly.

However one of the comments, number 4, goes into some depth that casts doubt on the claim. Who is right here?

Yes, they say something different, but they don't provide any evidence that there version is correct.You seem to be quite selective in your requirements for believability.

In regards to the second allegation the only times I've ever seen the SP and TUSC which in my area is the SP alone has involved them trying to highjack something or other.

In 2011 I was at a UCU picket at the University of Hull, in addition to striking lecturers some local TUC council members, me and a mate we also had a few unaffiliated Socialists and the student section of the SP. The Student section turned up with a megaphone, but instead of manning the picket tried to get everyone to form some kind of rally chanting about Cairo and Wisconsin. When it didn't work they just left.

A year later in Grimsby the SP tried something similar at a Firemans Union protest, they were forcefully told to knock it off or be banned from any other FBU event. And when TUSC was formed the group spent months fighting with the local Labour party over control of the Union branches, the fight was purely about officer elections and affiliations, and of course financial support for the local council elections, even though TUSC only put up one candidate a year at the time.

But for me the worst thing they did highjacking wise was to the National Shop Stewards Network. The NSSN was a network for shop stewards in various unions across the country, hence the name. The SP had put a lot of effort into this network and for awhile had received quite a bit of credit from Trade Union types. However in 2011 it soon became clear that the NSSN was supposed to be just another front for the SP and assuch all non SP members ended up resigning. http://socialistunity.com/majority-of-nssn-officers-resign-en-bloc/

Effectively killing what had been a fairly active support network for the sake of party strategy.

This discussion thread has been seriously sidetracked and really should be split off into at least two or just closed down.

If people voted for the party to take over the NSSN then how have they hijacked it?

Ghost Whistler

If people voted for the party to take over the NSSN then how have they hijacked it?

???????????? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you read it again, Socialist Party members voted for the socialist party to take over the NSSN against the objections of every non SP shop steward. The NSSN was a network for mutual support for shop stewards in industrial disputes, the SP used its members within it to divert the organisation to supporting the SP's chosen front group, knowing full well that this was in opposition to the wishes of the rest of the membership, and in direct contradiction of the stated aims of the organisation. That is the very definition of a high jacking.

The essential NSSN anti-cuts task, of stiffening the resolve of the trades unions, locally and nationally, to fight cuts through co-ordinated strike action, will be set aside or de-prioritised.

It will ensure that the regional and local SSN groups-already weak and struggling in the main- will wither as they transfer time and energy to establishing-or duplicating-local anti-cuts campaigns.

At the Steering Committee of December 4th, six national officers and EVERY NON-SP STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER voted against this proposal, yet the Socialist Party has ignored this feeling despite our further appeals, knowing full well that our continued participation in the NSSN would be intolerable.

3. Ninety NSSN activists met after the end of that Saturday’s conference and unanimously decided to continue the work of trade union activists’ solidarity on an organised national basis. Please get in touch.”

Reddebrek

???????????? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you read it again, Socialist Party members voted for the socialist party to take over the NSSN against the objections of every non SP shop steward.

Right, which is what I said. There was a vote, the people that didn't agree lost the vote. Isn't that the kind of democracy anarchists like, or does this meant that, in a post capitalist society, you will piss your pants when you lose a vote. How else will things get done.

Now if you want to make a case as to why them taking it over is a bad thing, then be my guest and show me the evidence.

The NSSN was a network for mutual support for shop stewards in industrial disputes, the SP used its members within it to divert the organisation to supporting the SP's chosen front group, knowing full well that this was in opposition to the wishes of the rest of the membership, and in direct contradiction of the stated aims of the organisation. That is the very definition of a high jacking.

Chosen front group? What on earth? This doesn't even make sense. Why would they have a front group if they aren't obscuring the fact they are taking it over?

Why did you allow them the option to do so in the first place if this was going to be a problem?

The essential NSSN anti-cuts task, of stiffening the resolve of the trades unions, locally and nationally, to fight cuts through co-ordinated strike action, will be set aside or de-prioritised.

Why would the SP do that given they are anti cuts?

At the Steering Committee of December 4th, six national officers and EVERY NON-SP STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER voted against this proposal, yet the Socialist Party has ignored this feeling despite our further appeals, knowing full well that our continued participation in the NSSN would be intolerable.

Why would it be intolerable? Why coudn't you just continue?

Spikymike

This discussion thread has been seriously sidetracked and really should be split off into at least two or just closed down.

talk to the admins then. don't whine about it here.

In the case of the alleged rape, and still in lieu of anything resembling evidence, what were the SPEW meant to do? Just chuck out someone who, for all we know, could have been a committed member in otherwise good standing?

The victim says that she consented for heaven's sake. So what are investigators to make of that?

She claims she did so under duress. That may be true.

She also says that she chose, as is her right, not to go to the police.

The problem is that this creates a situation that makes pursuing the matter impossible.

So again, ffs, how am i to pursue this? You want me to leave because they don't take rape claims seriously? Then tell me how to pursue!

Ghost Whistler

talk to the admins then. don't whine about it here.

Fuck you asshole. You're the whiner.

In the case of the alleged rape, and still in lieu of anything resembling evidence, what were the SPEW meant to do? Just chuck out someone who, for all we know, could have been a committed member in otherwise good standing?

The victim says that she consented for heaven's sake. So what are investigators to make of that?

She claims she did so under duress. That may be true.

She also says that she chose, as is her right, not to go to the police.

The problem is that this creates a situation that makes pursuing the matter impossible.

So again, ffs, how am i to pursue this? You want me to leave because they don't take rape claims seriously? Then tell me how to pursue!

Fuck you.

Fleur

In the case of the alleged rape, and still in lieu of anything resembling evidence, what were the SPEW meant to do? Just chuck out someone who, for all we know, could have been a committed member in otherwise good standing?

The victim says that she consented for heaven's sake. So what are investigators to make of that?

She claims she did so under duress. That may be true.

She also says that she chose, as is her right, not to go to the police.

The problem is that this creates a situation that makes pursuing the matter impossible.

So again, ffs, how am i to pursue this? You want me to leave because they don't take rape claims seriously? Then tell me how to pursue!

Fuck you.

If you genuinely cared about this you'd be willing and able to answer my questions.

What does 'fuck you' even mean here? You don't like the SPEW but don't take the issue seriously enough to try and address it when the chance is given. You claim to be an anarchist but are quite happy to advocate for authoritarian behaviour and have someone thrown out of a party they (presumably) care about because you say so.

If you genuinely cared about this you'd be willing and able to answer my questions.

You're not worth my time.

Ghost Whistler

Right, which is what I said. There was a vote, the people that didn't agree lost the vote. Isn't that the kind of democracy anarchists like, or does this meant that, in a post capitalist society, you will piss your pants when you lose a vote. How else will things get done.

Remind me, aren't you the user whose every third post is crying about other people being mean to you?

And no that isn't what you've said, you're being deliberately dishonest. The SP members (who weren't the majority of the NSSN at that point) voted to divert the NSSN into its chosen anti cuts front group. The majority (the non SP members) opposed it and left the group. Furthermore the stated aim of the NSSN was to provide support for shop stewards in industrial disputes, not work for one specific political party. So the SP even if they had a majority in the organisation would be breaking the organisations rules.

Furthermore

The NSSN was established to become a strong independent organisation of trades union activists, with trades council and trades union branch affiliates.

Its meetings cannot function as independent voting bodies if all major decisions are to be taken beforehand by the Socialist Party.

The decision to drive the NSSN into the arms of the Socialist Party was taken by the SP, there members turned up to the January meeting and forced through those measures. Meaning that the NSSN had been co-opted by the SP, no amount of numbers would change that even if they had 9:1 advantage.

Now if you want to make a case as to why them taking it over is a bad thing, then be my guest and show me the evidence.

How's about you start providing evidence for your claims (any of them) you're not a neutral, on every challenge you take a pro SP side and makeup your own reading of the events and then expect us all to keep up with you.

If you think the SP's version of events (which by the by differ from yours) then provide some evidence.

Chosen front group? What on earth? This doesn't even make sense. Why would they have a front group if they aren't obscuring the fact they are taking it over?

????? The SP turned the NSSN into an arms of its anti cuts front group which eventually became TUSC. Are you denying that the SP is part of TUSC, or that its a front group. A front group does not have to be clandestine or secretive, it simply has to be a group subordinated to another.

Why did you allow them the option to do so in the first place if this was going to be a problem?

Well from what my friends who were in NSSN have told me, trust. The SP had a reputation for being honest and supportive so to see them stab the rest in the back was a bitter pill. That's why the resignations were unanimous, no one could trust the SP members again.

Why would the SP do that given they are anti cuts?

Probably because the NSSN's non SP members gave it links beyond its scope. That and a network of shop floor militants engaged in lengthy and costly strike actions weren't going to help the party achieve its dreams of being the new Labour party. You might as well ask why the SP didn't just join one of the dozens of anti cuts groups that had already been established at this point.

I mean TUSC when it was launched did bill itself as being a Workers alliance between the Socialist Party and Trade Unionists* attaching a group like the NSSN that already had a reputation, some groundwork and the involvement of some "big names" in the British Labour movement would clearly have helped establish them. To bad it didn't work out that way.

But I guess you'll have to ask the SP why they knowingly broke the back of the NSSN.

*Which turned out in most cases to be SP members in Trade Unions

Why would it be intolerable? Why coudn't you just continue?

Continue with what? Shilling for a political party that manoeuvred them? If an organisation that was supposed to be providing support from shop floor to shop floor can be diverted to the aims of a political party then the organisation is already dead.

And it is dead since I've not heard a thing from the SP NSSN since.

Ghost Whistler clearly have every intention of dismissing every issue with the SPEW and appers to think what could they do is some kind of gotcha

so for other people this is the anarchist federation safer spaces policy - https://afed.org.uk/about/safer-spaces/
it's not perfect but its allot better than claiming there is not enough evidence and then doing nothing

I've now realized that GW might just be incredibly naiive.

Fleur

If you genuinely cared about this you'd be willing and able to answer my questions.

You're not worth my time.

You're a coward

Ghost Whistler wrote:

You claim to be an anarchist but are quite happy to advocate for authoritarian behaviour and have someone thrown out of a party they (presumably) care about because you say so.

You're chattin' shit too.

Reddebrek

And no that isn't what you've said, you're being deliberately dishonest. The SP members (who weren't the majority of the NSSN at that point) voted to divert the NSSN into its chosen anti cuts front group. The majority (the non SP members) opposed it and left the group. Furthermore the stated aim of the NSSN was to provide support for shop stewards in industrial disputes, not work for one specific political party. So the SP even if they had a majority in the organisation would be breaking the organisations rules.

Then why didn't the NSSN vote against this? Obviously there was a vote, you are not saying the SP just physically forced people out and took over. There was a process. If the majority of people involved thought the SP could do a better job then why should they not vote accordingly. If those who disagree didn't vote then what else is supposed to happen? How else are such matters to be resolved?

I sense there is something going on here that you are not telling me. I can only appraise the situation based on what is reported.

The NSSN was established to become a strong independent organisation of trades union activists, with trades council and trades union branch affiliates.

Its meetings cannot function as independent voting bodies if all major decisions are to be taken beforehand by the Socialist Party.

Then why on earth did the situation come up in the first place? Again, what are you not telling me?

The decision to drive the NSSN into the arms of the Socialist Party was taken by the SP, there members turned up to the January meeting and forced through those measures. Meaning that the NSSN had been co-opted by the SP, no amount of numbers would change that even if they had 9:1 advantage.

If the NSSN had nothing to do with the SP initially how could this have happened? Could anyone have turned up and decided to take control? Could the government? The Labour party? A guild of WoW players?

How's about you start providing evidence for your claims (any of them) you're not a neutral, on every challenge you take a pro SP side and makeup your own reading of the events and then expect us all to keep up with you.

I haven't taken any such side, you are just whining because I don't immediately accept what you are telling me as established unquestioned fact. Same with this rape accusation. Yet you don't seem to understand just how serious and how damaging an accusation, if unfounded, can be. I've repeatedly asked for more to go on so i can do precisely what you gutless little cowards want, which is to question the party, and yet you refuse.

If you think the SP's version of events (which by the by differ from yours) then provide some evidence.

I have no idea what the SP's version of the events is and I have not provided my own version, I have simply asked questions about the version YOU have presented. You keep acting as if a group from the SP physically took charge of a previously neutral organisation yet there was a vote. So either you haven't told me the whole truth or you are desperately confused.

????? The SP turned the NSSN into an arms of its anti cuts front group which eventually became TUSC. Are you denying that the SP is part of TUSC, or that its a front group. A front group does not have to be clandestine or secretive, it simply has to be a group subordinated to another.

I don't know what isn't clear about the words I used,

You are asserting that the SP acted covertly, hence the term 'front group', and yet they seem to have been quite open about the fact it was them.

And yes a front group does imply secrecy. Especially when you don't explain what you mean by that. I'm well aware of TUSC. I don't for one moment think they will win elections, so what?

Well from what my friends who were in NSSN have told me, trust. The SP had a reputation for being honest and supportive so to see them stab the rest in the back was a bitter pill. That's why the resignations were unanimous, no one could trust the SP members again.

How did they stab people in the back? There was a vote. Are you now saying the promised to vote X and instead vote Y? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place? Are you deliberately being disingenuous because you want to score points here?

So now it's ok when you criticise my version of events, even though i've presented none, but you are ok with presenting someone else's version. You don't actually have any direct experience of this yourself. But I should unquestioningly accept it nonetheless because otherwise makes me a trot etc.

Do you hear yourself?

Probably because the NSSN's non SP members gave it links beyond its scope. That and a network of shop floor militants engaged in lengthy and costly strike actions weren't going to help the party achieve its dreams of being the new Labour party. You might as well ask why the SP didn't just join one of the dozens of anti cuts groups that had already been established at this point.

How do you know they havent?

But I guess you'll have to ask the SP why they knowingly broke the back of the NSSN.

Because asking such a loaded question will yield an honest open answer? A bit like asking why they dismiss rape claims? I mean, it's not as if those are loaded questions is it!

/facepalm.

Continue with what? Shilling for a political party that manoeuvred them? If an organisation that was supposed to be providing support from shop floor to shop floor can be diverted to the aims of a political party then the organisation is already dead.

Continue being part of the NSSN.

Sounds like these people just threw out the baby with the bathwater.

And it is dead since I've not heard a thing from the SP NSSN since.

Not the impression i get from reading their articles. But admittedly I don't know since i'v enever been part of it.

factvalue

Ghost Whistler wrote:

You claim to be an anarchist but are quite happy to advocate for authoritarian behaviour and have someone thrown out of a party they (presumably) care about because you say so.

You're chattin' shit too.

How so?

Though i doubt you'll answer. Cowards like you never do.

Khawaga

I've now realized that GW might just be incredibly naiive.

Youre naive if you think there's any way to investigate a claim based on so subjective an account as the rape claim here.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the victim. But there's no way I can see to resolve it and since none of you have been willing to give me anything to work with I can't pursue it.

The naiive comment was in response to the NSSN stuff. And I never told you to investigate the rape accusation, I have said you should raise it with your organization as a start. But yo seem to be a typical yes man, just going along with what the party tells you.

You're a coward

Again with the fuck you. You think you are owed a debate, you entitled little prick? Nobody owes you jack shit. People have tried to engage with you politely and you've been nothing but rude and dismissive. What is it with people who squat behind their keyboards and think they can demand that people engage with them? Explain! Prove it! Citation please! Sod off. Nobody owes you any of their time and to be quite honest I think people have been way too patient with you and you should probably thank them for donating as much of their time to you as they have. Surely they must have had something more enjoyable to do, like clean out their cat's litter or have their earwax syringed.

I'm not having the conversation with you about rape culture in left politics because I've had that conversation way to many times already with way too many stupid men who think their own ill-informed, ignorant-assed, half-baked opinions are more important that listening to people who actually know a thing or two about this. And I don't give a newt's jizz if you think I'm a coward for not being arsed to rehash all this all over again with you because I've moved on from that place where I can be bothered and opinions of people such as yourself have been tossed onto my ever growing pile of stuff I have no fucks to give over.

Thread locked while we figure out what to do with this mess.