This is me introducing myself on Libcom. This post is a mish mash of many things. Immigration, the call to vote leave on EU Referendum by Lexit(Left Exit), CPBML, Socialist Labour Party, SPEW, SWP, SLP and Stereotyping of Marxists and Anarchists and Socialism.
First a confession I voted leave in the EU Referendum. If I had a Tardis and could go back in time to just before I voted in the EU Referendum I tell myself to vote remain. I voted leave on the basis of my anger towards EU treatment of Greece. My vote for leave only ended up in throwing under the bus non english speaking immigrants from eastern Europe and embolden racism towards black and asian citizens. To be honest I am ashamed of how I voted in EU referendum. I let myself have a blinkered opinion by focusing solely on brutal EU treatment of Greece. Now I realize voting leave will not help Greece in any way. I deserve to be strongly criticized because of this.
I believe a good socialist should be open and transparent and admit when they have made mistakes and realize that they are NOT infallible and are flawed. I admit I was wrong in how I voted over EU referendum.
Now I agree with articles from both SPGB, RCG and Anarchist Federation on the EU referendum (see links at bottom)
This regret of mine led me to rethink critically of the Lexit campaign being supported by SPEW, SWP and RMT. First I shall critique the Socialist Party of England and Wales
In Page 15 of SPEW Pamphlet ‘EU Referendum: The socialist case for exit’
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party deputy general secretary writes:
“The Socialist Party is campaigning for the right of all those working in Britain to be able to continue to do so with full legal rights”
The problem with this statement from Hannah Sell from SPEW is it is written as if the SPEW have the actual legal authority and political power and there is a Socialist Majority in Britain to actually stop European immigrants from being deported by force when Britain is expected to officially leave the EU in 2019. The problem with SPEW analysis on EU is that it focused on what the EU is when it should have been investigating the motives of what would cause people to vote leave which was feelings of anti immigration being rampant.
SPEW are under the illusion that many voted leave from a Marxist/Socialist perspective. Only a tiny minority voted leave from a Marxist/Socialist perspective.
The EU referendum vote was not a vote to choose between Socialism or Capitalism but if voters wanted to leave a regional trade bloc only.
While it has been reported that Theresa May will allow EU Citizens to stay in Britain as long as British Citizens get the same treatment EU citizens are still in legal limbo as it has not been confirmed if EU will agree to this.
Consider also the SLP (Socialist Labour Party) on Page 12 of their manifesto:
“The Socialist Labour Party policy on immigration/emigration is clear.
A sensible and fair immigration policy should give priority to asylum seekers,
citizens of Commonwealth countries and countries previously ‘ruled’ by
Britain limited to the number of people emigrating from Britain each year.”
Also the SLP state: “Withdrawal from the EU would save Britain £170 billion a year.” This claim is based on the fact that it costs “UK £55 million a day in membership fees to EU” but the counter argument is benefits gained from EU funding given to UK of which Wales is a prime example.
Clearly the SLP excluding asylum seekers and refugees immigration want a cap on which balances those arriving into Britain against those departing from Britain in other words “One person leave, another person allowed to enter” which is not internationalist but centered on supposed national interests exclusively of British working class which contradicts the internationalist aspects of Socialism
Both the official Remain and Leave campaign used anti-immigration rhetoric
“The Remain campaign stressed that Britain is outside of Schengen and that David Cameron had negotiated a curb on benefits that ‘draw’ EU migrants to the UK.”
In fact new Labour which campaigned for Voting In (Remain) had as part of their 2015 general election manifesto a policy of
“Controls on Immigration”
Has the left in general outside of online articles and forums been any good at convincing people to stop holding anti immigration views? The left needs to win the intellectual argument against anti immigration views. How do we change people’s mind who sadly would oppose open borders? The problem is to get beyond preaching to the converted who already believe in open borders such as myself.
As for myself I struggle to articulate arguments against anti immigration rhetoric but that I put down to my lack of knowledge.
On the basis that 17.4 million voted leave and 33% of the reason among leave voters was immigration then that would equate to 5 million and seven hundred and forty two thousand (5742000) leave voters holding anti immigration views with 3% or Five Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand out of those 5 million and seven hundred and forty two thousand holding anti immigration views being hard core racists (522000) still a huge figure of British White English speaking Citizens who sadly can make life miserable brutal and cruel with racist abuse towards eastern European immigrants and Black and Asian citizens.
While I still think the EU is undemocratic we must also remember so is the Westminster Style Representative democracy is undemocratic. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.”
As for Nigel Farage declaring on 24th June Independence day for UK I disagree strongly as this implies that the UK was occupied by an armed invasion force for many years which is totally ridiculous. Plus the fact that British voters voted democratically of their own free will to join EU in the EU referendum of 1975.
Blame the capitalist system, not the immigrants.
I was at one point seriously thinking of joining SPEW having attending a public meeting and Branch Meetings until I realized how much Trotskyism underlines the theoretical underpinning of SPEW and I cannot join a Socialist Organization which defends Trotskyism when I know nothing about Trotskyism or Bolshevism. The way Leon Trotsky is venerated by SPEW is like Leon Trotsky is infallible which I disagree with strongly. Also the problem with SPEW offering open but critical support of Jeremy Corbyn is SPEW accepting at face value that even if Labour Party in 2020 wins next general election with Jermey Corbyn still leader that does not mean Labour will freeze cuts and spend on vital services as there Labour could then do a Syriza in Greece and end up making cuts anyway. As this link to a blog here shows https://cardiffmarxistgroup.com/2016/01/25/why-the-cwi-russian-section-does-not-suit-us/ former members of SPEW from Wales explain there was no vote over position of SPEW after Jeremy Corbyn elected leader of Labour just a directive from leadership of SPEW to support Jeremy Corbyn. Interestingly the sister organization of SPEW in Greece offered open but critical support to Syriza paralleling SPEW support for Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party.
SPEW claim in their pamphlet of Russian Revolution 1917 that the Bolsheviks had only 4% support by April 1917 but that before the First World War had fourth-fifth support of organized working class in Russian Empire. The claim of 4% support in Russia in April 1917 I can believe but I question the claim of the Bolsheviks having fourth-fifth support of organized working class in Russia before First World War. Is there any truth to this claim of majority support of Bolsheviks in Russia before First World War?
Also is criticism of Menshevik and Social Revolutionaries justified?
Is it correct that the failed July 1917 revolution was discouraged by the Bolsheviks and was more independently working class organized led? Was the October 1917 revolution have majority support from working class in Russia?
Was there much support for Bolsheviks in Russia outside of Petrograd during 1917-1921?
Is not Trotskyism vs Stalinism just a case of different factions within Bolshevism fighting for political power over the working class?
I am puzzled by SPGB opposition to Direct Action. For example Direct Action against Bedroom Tax cannot be Vanguardist as Direct Action against Bedroom Tax involves those facing evictions because of Bedroom Tax using their own free will contacting a campaign group asking for solidarity action.
I am seriously thinking of taking the test to join SPGB next year but until I know what is the view of SPGB on direct action today I will not join as I fear that if I did get involved with direct action such as stopping someone getting evicted I would end up being expelled from SPGB.
Even SPEW support direct action against Bedroom Tax and have successfully stopped several people being evicted in the city where I live.
I am open minded about class based struggle anarchism and stateless socialism but want to lean more what that actually means such as how would healthcare work without a state? Libcom and SPGB website recently have made me aware of the existence of anti-leadership and anti-hierarchical models of socialism which interest and hold appeal to me.
I am angry over how the police say they are just
“keeping the peace”
and
“upholding the law”
when they support strikebreakers. My reply to this is law and morality do not necessarily coincide. Also police do not keep the peace but in my opinion dictate the peace and dictate the wages, terms and conditions of labour of the working class by being servants of the ruling class through the state alongside the courts in supporting the bosses and strikebreakers.
I think the reason why it is so easy to stereotype communists and anarchists is because numbers of anarchists and communists are small in number in united kingdom so people form a mental image of communists and anarchists based on their own imagination and mainstream media distorted and fragmented media image. I jokingly say to anarchists when I interact with them on social media that I imagine them as mysterious ninjas ;)
The smallness in numbers of Marxists and Anarchists allows right wing media to say
politician they dislike to be called a “commie” remember how Ed Miliband was called
Red Ed
and a communist?
I am aware that SPGB have had a public meeting with Ian Bone of Class War. While I know very little about anarchism I understand enough to know that anarchists within the UK are not a homogenous group and that there are differences between SolFed, Anarchist Federation and Class War so I hope SPGB will invite members of SolFed and Anarchist Federation to be guest speakers at SPGB public meetings so people get a more rounded view of Anarchism within the UK and understand any organizational structures, theoretical, tactical and strategic difference between Class War, SolFed and Anarchist Federation.
I also feel many really revolutionary Socialist and Anarchist organizations feel London centric. Where I live in West Midlands the SPEW are the only Socialist Organization which is frustrating but I admit they have done good work against the bedroom tax where I live and will honestly give credit where credits due to any Socialist or Anarchist organization that does good work that makes a concrete difference.
I hope one day to meet anarchists and members of SPGB one day as they write many good articles.
Would love some feedback to this and any relevant useful information you can give me please.
Thank you.
https://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/the-racism-excuse/
https://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/the-elephant-in-the-referendum/
http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/capitalist-crisis/4349-eu-referendum
http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/policies.html
https://afed.org.uk/no-borders-no-states-no-wars-resistance-bulletin-160/
DS seems like you have
DS seems like you have already got a pretty good handle on some of the fault lines apparent in much of the organised left wing political groups around in the UK. Whilst I have respect for the basic long term socialist/communist objectives of the SPGB their primarily educational approach to their activity and hostility towards what you describe as direct action would seem to point you in the direction of the Anarchist Federation rather than the SPGB.
Hello thanks Spikymike for
Hello thanks Spikymike for your feedback. Much appreciated. Valid points. I need to do a lot more research on Socialism before joining any organization. Cheers to more future discussions with each other.
There is an audio recording
There is an audio recording of a debate between Albert Meltzer of Black Flag and Dick Donnelly of the SPGB on How can a Real Revolution be achieved?
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/how-can-real-revolution-be-achieved
The transcript is also here on libcom if you prefer to read that.
I believe the SPGB regard direct action (if that excludes voting) as not only unpopular but also ineffective, or to put it another way; favours the direct action of casting your vote at the ballot box.
Participation in any direct
Participation in any direct action is taken on an individual's own assessment of whether it is beneficial or counter-productive (some say that Fathers for Justice stunts brought much-needed publicity. Others say it brought ridicule).
As a party, the SPGB does not participate in nor organise direct action, but we do not prohibit our members as individuals from engaging in them.
Our position overlaps with our trade union attitude. Resistance to the many and diverse encroachments of the ruling class is necessary but the best folk to determine when and how to fight back is those involved and affected. Our only cautionary advice is for any direct action to be democratically decided and not embarked upon by unrepresentative minorities without any mandate. This may indeed bring our position into conflict with those anarchists who claim the authority of autonomy - (such as the fashionistas of the Black Bloc-heads who i once had the embarrassment of being kettled with)
If you have issues with fracking in your neighbourhood, you don't need the SPGB to parachute in clutching copies of the Socialist Standard, telling you the best way to express your opposition.
You need to cooperate and coordinate with your family, friends, neighbours and co-workers.
Likewise, SPEW/SWP, one-day demo wonders with their Blue Peter pre-prepared placards to hijack the identity of protests then disappear like will o the wisps when recruitment opportunities fail to materialise, they have never offered a real substitute for the long-term grassroots campaigning required for successful resistance.
Hello thank you both
Hello thank you both jondwhite and ajjohnstone for taking the time to reply to me. I see you are both members of SPGB. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the SPGB position on Direct Action.
"The fan club of the man with the hat" I laughed at that description of George Galloway
from this SPGB article http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1342-june-2016/out-big-business-or-little-england
I would add "The fan club of the man with the hat"could have ended with the line "The fan club of the man with the hat... whose ego would not in fit his hat"
I intend to go to SPGB summer school in 2017 if I have spare money the month that it takes place.
Thank you for taking the time
Thank you for taking the time to reply I am still interested in possibly joining the SPGB by taking the test after attending the next SPGB summer school and I have learned more about what Socialism is in greater detail.
Thank you for taking the time
Thank you for taking the time to reply I am still interested in possibly joining the SPGB by taking the test after attending the next SPGB summer school and I have learned more about what Socialism is in greater detail.
Responding to one of your
Responding to one of your comments on another thread here:
DigitalSocialist
just to say it's not just Labour councils Unison don't want strikes in, officials generally oppose strikes in Tory councils and in private sector contractors as well.
On this their two major reasons. First of which is about their actual practice day-to-day, which is essentially social democratic (encouraging people to participate in their front organisations, and vote Labour), and second of which is their historical record.
On this latter point, this text is extremely instructive, as it looks at the actual history of the Russian revolution with regard to workers' control, in that workers attempted to take power by the Bolsheviks (under Lenin and Trotsky) undermined it at every step: https://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
there is a much more detailed libertarian critique of state socialism here: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secHcon.html
Quote: Likewise, SPEW/SWP,
I totally agree I witnessed earlier this year the SWP hijack as
a local anti racism racism demo against EDL
This was my first encounter with a group of SWP members and not only were they undemocratic but also embarrassing to witness in action.
Over several years I’ve
Over several years I’ve attended a number of SPGB meetings and found them educational particularly regarding economics. Their monthly ‘Socialist Standard’ is usually informative. The two part article, ‘The Heroic Tragedy: Civil War and Social Revolution in Spain’, gave me food for thought. A subject dear to most anarchist’s heart.
So remember we are all still learning.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1345-september-2016/heroic-tragedy-civil-war-and-social-revolution-
Hello thanks Steven. I will
Hello thanks Steven.
I will check out those links.
Do you have any thoughts on local Trade Union Councils and do you think the NSSN is a waste of time now? Been reading Libcom posts on 2010/2011 crisis within NSSN
Quote: So remember we are all
I keep telling some of my comrades that we don't have all the answers to all of the questions. (they only think they do ;-p )
So whilst I'm being nice to
So whilst I'm being nice to the SPGB I thought this take on the anarchists and the Spanish Civil War from an earlier Summer school was a cut above the average for them:
http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/spgb-summer-school-2014-audio-recordings-24072014
which also has another link to a related discussion.
There is of course much more valid criticism of the SPGB's politics in relation to the everyday class struggle elsewhere on this site for those interested.
DigitalSocialist wrote: I
DigitalSocialist
Perhaps someone could explain why their position is problematic. I certainly would be interested to understand this. I have a friend in the SPEW who attended my recent WCA with me, helping me greatly. If he is representative of the organisation then that would be to their credit.
Of course such support is not exclusive to any group or individual, not just the SPEW.
Can we all agree that
Can we all agree that DigitalSocialist has moved from Novice to Intermediate or Proficient?
boozemonarchy wrote: Can we
boozemonarchy
we need a libcom diploma
Black star of Bakunin (with
Black star of Bakunin (with oak leaf cluster) and the order of Marx (with five red stars).
DS and 'wishface', This
DS and 'wishface',
This recollection by Sheila Cohen of her time in the NSSN, and the role of the SPEW before the NSSN lost all of it's few anarcho-syndicalist and other independent participants might be of interest to you:
https://thecommune.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/what-it-says-on-the-tin-memories-of-the-nssn/
Though myself and others would have a more fundamental criticism of the role of TU shop stewards today.
Hello wishface thanks for
Hello wishface thanks for your comment. There are individuals within SPEW who do good work. In fact the SPEW branch near me stopped two people from being evicted this year but I if I joined SPEW I would be committing myself to an organization heavily influenced by Trotskyism. The leader of SPEW Peter Taffee openly admitted in a book he wrote called Marxism in today's World that he has been a Trotskyist since he was eighteen. My worry was if I joined SPEW and later on discovered that criticism of Leon Trotsky was valid would I then be given the freedom to openly to criticize Trotskyism? I am thinking of Anarchists anger over events such as Trotsky role in crushing Kronstadt rebellion. I still have to learn about Kronstadt rebellion. Another reason I had doubts is reading this blog this month by an ex member which has troubled me greatly regarding the leadership of the Socialist Party of England and Wales ...https://sakollantai.com/2013/04/
Hello Mr Serge thanks for the
Hello Mr Serge thanks for the compliments. When I first came across Libcom I did not know where to start. So many great articles on the rich history of the working class. So I am starting by looking critically at Lenin and Trotsky. In my teens I read six books from my local libary on Joseph Stalin so I have no intention ever of being Stalinist. I had heard that Stalinist had a lot of influence in the British Trade Union. No idea if this is still true today
DigitalSocialist wrote: Hello
DigitalSocialist
Thanks for replying, but i've never understood the issue with Trotskyism. The man himself may well have been a bad person, though evidence seems subjective at best, he was also a product of his time. The Krondstadt situation likewise seems subjective. Who knows what actually happened?
What does it mean to say that Taffe is a trot; what does that mean?
Quote: What does it mean to
What I mean by that is with Peter Taffe being leader of Socialist Party of England and Wales as well as being a Trotskyist it would be difficult for a member of SPEW who became critical of Trotsky to speak their mind on the issue openly.
DigitalSocialist
DigitalSocialist
I don't see why not? Have you any evidence to support this?
Again: what is the problem with trotskyism? I'm not seeing an argument here.
My doubts in SPEW started
My doubts in SPEW started from reading these blog posts by ex members of SPEW
https://cardiffmarxistgroup.com/
https://sakollantai.com/2013/04/
As stated I have doubts about Trotskyism and I am still learning.
Maybe you should ask others on here who have greater knowledge of Trotskyism.
Wishface #22 ‘i've never
Wishface #22
‘i've never understood the issue with Trotskyism. The man himself may well have been a bad person, though evidence seems subjective at best, he was also a product of his time. The Krondstadt situation likewise seems subjective. Who knows what actually happened?’
Yes, Henry Ford was probably correct, ‘History is more or less bunk’.
On the other hand maybe he was wrong. Who can tell, I never met the fellow (or Trotsky) and possibly both loved their mothers. As John Sebastian sang, ‘It’s all just a mystery to me’. Why read up on stuff when we can write bollocks.
DigitalSocialist wrote: My
DigitalSocialist
That's fine.
My initial question was an open one, so anyone else is free to answer the question.
Auld-bod wrote: Wishface
Auld-bod
I have read up on stuff. From both sides. Each making cogent arguments. Anarchists have claimed Trotsky is a mass murderer, those defending him say that Kronstadt was infiltrated by outside influences bent on wrecking the revolution.
I don't condone mass murder, and in fact have read plenty of anarchists who don't rule out the use of violence in the revolutionary process. I happen to think violence shouldn't be ruled out as well, but I'm not going to openly condone mass murder/genocide unless presented with a very good justification. So where does that leave us and how are we any closer to understanding what trotskyism is given that so far noone here has presented an explanation.
Your comment is needlessly facetious and doesn't answer my question. Would you like to try again?
DigitalSocialist wrote: My
DigitalSocialist
That's a deeply serious and quite profound allegation. Is/was there any truth to it?
Robert Service did a
Robert Service did a biography of Trotsky reviewed here
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1267-march-2010/book-reviews
I'm there are shorter critiques of militant tendency and other British Trots on the SPGB website too.
jondwhite wrote: Robert
jondwhite
Are they worth reading?
As others have said,
As others have said, DigitalSocialist you seem to have a good grasp of things. Have you read through these?
http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide
wishface--it's really tough to give a thorough critique of Trotskyism without writing a ponderous polemic which is likely why no one has taken you up on it as of yet.
Hopefully, you'll also have read the above Introductory Guides because a general understanding of the underlying tenets of libertarian communism will make a libcom analysis of Trotskyism clearer. That is to say, our critique of capitalism, the state, political parties, and unions are all essential elements/one in the same as of our critique of Trotskyism.
I'm sure there are others here who could give a more succinct yet thorough primer, and I'm hardly an expert on the subject. That said, I will lay out a quick, very cursory overview.
The problem with Trotsyism isn't about whether or not the man himself was a 'good or bad' person. Krondstadt was a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself. As such, though that event is for sure historically important, it isn't necessary to agree on what happened there to understand why we see Trotskyism as a counter-revolutionary force.
Our critique is also not about whether or not modern-day Trots are good or bad. Most people on libcom will tell you they've met and worked with solid working class militants who also happen to be Trots. Many here, myself included, found their entry into radical politics via SWP/ISO or related groups. Personally, I think most rank and file Trots truly believe believe they are working for emancipatory politics and towards 'socialism from below.'
The problem instead is in the fundamental structural role of The Party and The State, acting in a role that many of us refer to as the Left-Wing of Capital. Our critique of Trotskyism is, at its essence, no different than our critique of Leninism itself. The Party--as "the vanguard of the working class" subsequently attempts (consciously or not) to substitute itself for the working class. This leads to the Party believing its interests are the same as the class. Quite to the contrary, the working class' interests are often diametrically opposed to the interests of The Party, as was often the case in the USSR.
Additionally throughout the history of Troskyism--up to and including today--this substitutionalism quite often leads to The Party being a brake on class militancy for the good of the Party. (See multiple examples of Trot union leadership quelling the urge to strike, Trot marshals on demos attempting to control tactics, funneling organic anti-racist actions into the party via front groups, etc.)
As with all other variants of Leninism, Trotskyists believe in seizing the apparatuses of the economy and the state, and managing both in the interest of the working class. Taking this at face value, communism isn't about a change in who manages the economy, it's about eliminating the economy as we know it entirely. We believe in the abolition of work as separate activity from the rest of our every day life. We see anything less than this as just a different method of managing capitalism.
Trotskyism is top-down, centralised leadership. They are mediators, managers. While variants may call for 'socialism from below,' they still rely on a Central Committee, in whom the ultimate decision- making lies. In the case of the Russian Revolution, "all power to the Soviets" quickly became, in essence, all power to the Party.
Another area of fundamental disagreement is over the notion of the Popular Front. Regardless of who the given enemy is cross-class alliances are always counter-revolutionary.
At the end of the day, the problem is about management. Our critique of all variants of Leninism boils down to an opposition to anyone managing our lives other than ourselves. (There are, of course nuances and critiques of self- management but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.)
Finally, I'll end where I began and that is with the assertion that structurally, all variants of Leninism are different only in degrees. No doubt 9 times out of 10, the rank and file Trot is probably going to be more solid in action than a Stalinist, but using the common hypothetical of Trotsky winning the power struggle over Stalin, the fundamental nature of the USSR would still have remained State Capitalist. If the Party instead of the class was in charge, it would have nothing to do with communism; it's just capitalism with a different boss.
Jesuithitsquad, I'm so glad
Jesuithitsquad, I'm so glad you wrote all that. Many thanks for doing my and everyone else's homework for us. Black Star of Bakunin, etc goes to you as well, chumrade!
wishface #28 ‘I happen to
wishface #28
‘I happen to think violence shouldn't be ruled out as well, but I'm not going to openly condone mass murder/genocide unless presented with a very good justification.’
That you would not ‘openly condone mass murder’, rather puts you in the same camp as other Leninists - Trotskyists and Stalinists. They too are/were never ‘open’ when it came to their criminal acts. Recognising themselves as the vanguard of the working class their every deed was legitimised as the ‘end justifying the means’.
Libertarian communists would argue that the means determines the end. The trots speciality is the infiltration of other groups, particularly, the Labour Party, a game of deceit. With the Stalinists they also like to hide behind front organisations, which serve as recruiting agents. A game of useful idiots. So instead of the revolution being the task of the working class this is reinterpreted as a task for political manipulators (and their membership the real useful idiots).
#28
‘Your comment is needlessly facetious and doesn't answer my question. Would you like to try again?’
You asked, ‘Who knows what actually happened?’
My answer is that history has a number of competing stories. Some are more believable than others. I draw my own conclusions though my beliefs are necessarily provisional (as new/better information may emerge). As more and more evidence emerges about Trotsky’s actions I think his genius for self-justification becomes more obvious.
Auld-bod wrote: wishface
Auld-bod
You've straw manned me. I was quite clear about my position on genocide that it depended on the given justification. You are arguing against a position I did not put forth.
How is entryism, which seems to be what you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong), deceitful? Anarchists do the same thing. All parties do. I don't necessarily see what the issue with that is. If a trot joins the labour party to try and persaude members of, in his opinion, a genuinely held belief they argue is better what's wrong with that?
This seems a strange criticism to me.
wishface wrote: You've straw
wishface
i first thought you had written baldly, but i see i was wrong and your actually saying us support genocide if you like the justifications
No strawman. If you say you
No strawman. If you say you would not support something openly the implication is you would do it covertly. Out of curiosity, what conditions would ever justify genocide?
That you see nothing wrong with joining an organisation by pretending to support its aims does not surprise me, as you also wish on another thread to get revolutionaries to support reformism. I'm sure you genuinely believe all this political wriggling will get results. Unfortunately the usual result is total contempt and a negative attitude to all politics from the working class.
Hi there Wishface, I'm the
Hi there Wishface, I'm the author of that blog and yes it is true! The CWI have a terrible record of covering up many cases of abuse and violence against women, as well my own case - in Wales and England, Ireland, France, Sweden and Australia and no doubt more 'sections' again. I share many of Digital Socialist's criticisms of SPEW and the cultic veneration of Trotsky. It is a deeply undemocratic organisation that is in no way revolutionary.