Tired of petty sectarianism - come to Marxism 2002

by Ray Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:07

Here's the debate about Marxism from a few weeks ago...

by roseraygun Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:17

Rose and Ray
scheme all day
swp no way
is all they say
heh heh heh

by Joe Sheehan Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:19

Again back to the old chestnut, is this not merely and advertising feature and not a news feature?
Surely this should be in the Protest/events diary.

by Ray Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:23

I don't think anybody actually uses the protest/events diary. I wouldn't class Marxism as a commercial venture, so I don't regard it as advertising.

by jesus(am i a revolutionary?) Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:25

Was Jesus a revolutionary?
Kevin Wingfield

hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahaha

by Judean People's Front Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:28

Vive la Revolution! ha ha ha. I'm for free-market economics, low taxation and a liberal trade system. These have resulted in Ireland being one of the most successful economies in Europe. Marxism, on the other hand, resulted in Russia, North Korea, etc, etc.

Can I come so I can slag your joke-shop politics?

by conor - ucdsa Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:31 conor at ziplip dot com

meanwhile,back in the real world, the revolution is around the corner?

ask some questions,
get no answers

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=18766

by conor - ucdsa Fri Nov 22, 2002 15:31 conor at ziplip dot com

meanwhile,back in the real world, the revolution is around the corner?

ask some questions,
get no answers

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=18766

by emmmm Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:01

ie: do not disagee do not question,

yes I am sick of sectarianism, its a shame the swp doesn't have any debates between themselves and the SP, themselves and the WSM etc. They say sick of sectarianism but organise a conference soley about themselves, and invite a few celebs that they don't reckon are competition.
This would all be fine if they would simply admit it. Why can't they say SWP conference instead of Sick of Sectsarianism, its a plain lie!

by hs sp Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:05

I am interested in the prodestant workers meeting.
Could someone from the SWP let us know the current position, does it remain the old position of prods being tied to British Imperialism and incapable of independent action or has it changed?
I'm interested in the current line rather than denials of the old one before anyone gets upset.

by to hs sp Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:13

What's the matter, too mean to fork out a few euro?

by IMC reader Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:16

Tired of petty sectarianism - avoid Marxism 2002.

A party rally and sectarian anti anarchist/anti Sinn Fein/anti Socialist Party recruiting fair.
Meanwhile back in the real world hundreds of anti capitalists will be organising against war and capitalism.

by As for who polices the police Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:37

SWP - how come yall have a rule in your office to stop people using IMC?

How come on a recent visit someone not in party noted that according to address bar previously looked at page on a number of PCs was IMC?

So there is a distinction between real world (occupied by SWP) and a virtual world inhabited by the many many people who gather exchange info and ideas and debate here at IMC. Fuck y'all.

Y'all exist in the 'Real World' represented by your Marxism Poster which attempts to mask the political affiliation of a lot of those taking part and create a 'virtual' broad based event. Which is anything but broad based and which is a front for yet more recruit recruit recruit style political activity

Aside from those including Kevin, Aoife, Dave who are willing to debate with others here and those from SWP who work with the rest of us on the Site.

If IAWM is a broad based group and thus gets free advertising in Socialist Worker - How bout an add for the website that party rules have had to be imposed about, to stop party members using it?

Does y'r brain hurt now?

Maybe we IMC Addicts should treat Marxism as a hijackable virtual chatroom?

by Puzzled Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:46

Is this true?

by Kevin Wingfield Fri Nov 22, 2002 17:50

It's just that most of our members find they have better things to do than go mud wrestling with sectarians.

All for now

by Ray Fri Nov 22, 2002 18:07

The SWP don't believe in starting small and working your way up, but they do support _mass_ direct action.
One wing of the SWP has decided that the only way to square this circle is to clone Joe Carolan, and unleash a massive army of cloned direct activists upon the world.
The other wing, worried that this may finally be going too far, have gone back to the Bible for inspiration. After all, Jesus was a revolutionary. And he managed to multiple the loaves and fishes. So, since the SWP are obviously much more revolutionary than anyone else, including Jeebus, their revolutionary will should be enough to multiply activists whenever required. It would be the ultimate weapon - one minute there's a couple of hundred SWP activists, marching along the road, the next there are thousands! Millions! All in the blink of an eye!

And just IMAGINE how many papers they could sell!

by Phuq Hedd Fri Nov 22, 2002 18:16

Come and refresh yourself with Grand Sectarianism!!

Yes, consumers, now on offer is New and Improved sectarianism which washes Redder than Red!!!

Grand Sectarianism will lift you above the common muck and regale you with non-threatening interpretations of opposing viewpoints!

Grand Sectarianism will cocoon you in a correctly-edited version of history which leaves out the double-plus-ungood parts!

Grand Sectarianism is available now from all good outlets while offer lasts. Hurry to get yours now while offer lasts.

(Ad sponsored by the Maximalism 2003 conference)

by conor - ucdsa Fri Nov 22, 2002 18:45 conor at ziplip dot com

mr wingfield.

is asking questions of the swps lack of internal democracy and cult like characteristics now considered sectarianism?

and you thought that "free market" was a gross misuse of words!

by E Fri Nov 22, 2002 19:27

tell me something I've meaning to ask you for a while. When you left the SWP there in UCD, believe you called a meeting without informing the majority of members in UCD and then presented your resignation to the world as a fait accompli?

Then you took over the old UCD SWSS web site at http://www.geocities.com/ucdswss which now point’s people to your site? If you were anyway honest with yourself you'll of given back access to the old site to the people still in SWSS (the majority I believe). I can of course be corrected in my misconceptions.

cheers

Eugene
SWP Cork (soon to be Dublin again)

by ian cognito - phutyle international Fri Nov 22, 2002 19:37

accusing each other of sectarianism while acting in the same manner? irony
wake up and focus on the real opposition...
swp want to colonise every event but get some interesting individuals to their own, anarchists never organise in a meaningful sense on their own, but work well with other groups (e.g. rtc)
for christ's sake pull the plug from your arseholes and focus on the real issues instead of you petty bitching on this site. use it for some serious debate and information sharing like it was intended for...
Signed:
Ian Cognito
Guy N'Cognito (half brother)
Noman Knowles
Terri Bulshi

by ... Fri Nov 22, 2002 21:36

as far as i know 'hs' will not be able to make it along to marxism, because he is a thousand miles away in italy.

by conor mc gowan - ucdsa Sat Nov 23, 2002 15:44 conor at ziplip dot com

we (the branch committee - i personally had left the swss months in advance)called a meeting - the agm - postered for it - and the usual 7 punters turned up.i forget the exact figure but it was either 5/2 or 6/1 in favour of breaking away.

we gave the swss back the email account,and donal (who made the old swss site) took down his swss site - which was well dated.

the "majority" joined sa this year - according to college papers! the "majority" never turned up to swss meetings ,the "majority" are students , the "majority" diddnt make or pay for the website- neither did the swp , who nicked £ir 60 yo-yos off the branch for books we never got.

then again, i presume by majority , youd mean the party full timers , not us half arsed members of the cult

by anarcho Sat Nov 23, 2002 21:07 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Anarchism: An alternative to Marxism?"

If this is anything like the two SWP meetings
on this subject I've been to (one at Marxism
2001) then there will be much petty sectarianism
as well as lying, misrepresentations
and distortions. Read about it.

On Marxism 2001:

Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist adventures at Marxism 2001
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/2001.html

Dead Dogma Sketch (apologies to Monty Python)
A parody of Monty Python's "Dead Parrot Sketch" inspired by my experiences at Marxism 2001.
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/parrot.html

On the SWP and anarchism:

A reply to UK-SWP distortions on anarchism:
The SWP's very peculiar 'Anarchism'
http://struggle.ws/ws/supp/swp_nov00.html

And another:
Marxism and "Anarchism": A reply to the SWP
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/swp.html

Here one of the leaflets handed out about the
real differences between anarchism and leninism:
The Anarchist Alternative to Leninism
http://anarchism.ws/articles/lenin_alternative.html

ALl of which probably explains why the SWP
do not invite anarchists along to have a real
debate -- the SWP would soon get their politics
exposed for what they are, crap!

by X Sun Nov 24, 2002 14:25

I was just discussing this with comrades over the weekend.

From what I can see is that SA were just a small clique in the UCD SWSS last year. You guys were all mate, which is great, but you dominated the SWSS. You didnt allow others outside your clique to have a say in SWSS. You say the usuall 7 turned up to the AGM, you say it yourself. SWSS, which had over 100 members, was taken over by a clique of 7.

You accuse the SWP of being a cult! That's is madness in my opinion. How are the SWP a cult?

by Brian Cahill Sun Nov 24, 2002 17:13

Calling the SWP a "cult" is ridiculous. Critique their politics and organisational practices if you want to, but throwing terms like "cult" around is little more than abuse.

On an only peripherally related point, X seems to misunderstand the nature of student societies. The number of people willing to hand over a quid on a freshers stall is almost completely unrelated to the number of people willing to actually get involved. That's true for Ogra Fianna Fail or the table tennis club as much as for a Socialist Worker Society. Seven properly active people in a political society isn't bad at all... and I suspect quite a lot more than UCD SWSS has now.

by Brian Cahill Mon Nov 25, 2002 19:06

The link you posted belongs to an organisation called the American Family Foundation. This is a right-wing group with close links to the more mainstream elements of the Christian right in America.

This brand of "anti-cult" organisation is primarily focused on standard right wing goals - the shoring up of mainstream religion and the family. Not something I would have thought Socialist Alternative would really want to weigh in behind.

To a more limited extent there is another right wing agenda - the "cult" designation is extended to cover far left organisations. In other words good old fashioned red-baiting is turned into a specious theory and clothed in some useful academic garb.

I realise that you don't share the outlook or goals of people like the AFF, but by loosely slinging around terms like "cult" at left wing groups you are in fact playing their game.

There have been left wing groups which probably do deserve the description of "cult", in a conversational rather than technical way. Lyndon LaRouche's outfit in America and Healy's WRP in its final days are two of the most notable examples. Such organisations have always been seen as nuts by the rest of the left, which has refused to have anything to do with them. This is clearly not the case with the SWP - for all their undoubted unpopularity.

by conor Tue Nov 26, 2002 14:38

theres manys a "what is a cult " theories out there - i said this isnt the best link

by Brian Cahill Tue Nov 26, 2002 17:59

The link that you provided to back up your frnkly childish designation of the SWP as a "cult" was to the website of an American family values outfit which runs a sideline in trying to smear left wing groups as "cults".

Having this pointed out to you should have taught you something. Instead you come back claiming that there are better links you could have provided to back up your argument.

I'm not sure how clear I have to make this: running around calling groups like the SWP "cults" on the basis of the kind of theories promoted by the American Family Foundation is a very bad idea.

If you feel the urge to critique the organisational methods or politics of the SWP feel free to do so. I am not exactly a fan myself. But leave the "cult" claims out of it.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Nov 27, 2002 01:10

Is there some specific part of the AFA's characterisation of a cult that you disagree with? Because if you can't point to part of it and show that it's influenced specifically by their warped views and therefore invalid then you're engaging in a disreputable form of argument.

Suppose the argument were about whether or not the SWP were evolved from apes and the AFA said that they were and quoted Darwin, would you reject their definitions of ape and evolved just because they're morally repugnant people?

So, please explain Brian which parts of their definition of cult are wrong and/or why they don't apply to the SWP.

by Brian Cahill Wed Nov 27, 2002 19:04

This should be very simple PH. The AFF (not AFA) have invented a theory which holds that not only are there cults but there are "cultic" organisations which tend towards being cults. They have quite clear goals in inventing their sliding scale. It is to enable them to widen their net and to smear and marginalise organisations which they oppose. Even groups which quite patently are not "cults" can now be described as "cultic".

The primary purpose of this invented scale is to provide a weapon against minor religions to be used by supporters of major religions and "family values". A secondary purpose, and one which I am more concerned with, is to better enable those same right wing forces to smear and marginalise left wing groups.

Quite simply left wingers shouldn't play this game and shouldn't provide these bogus political weapons with extra credibility.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Dec 02, 2002 20:51

I know that the AFF are _using_ the "cult" designation to smear groups that they don't like, but that doesn't mean that their definition of cult is incorrect. It also doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a cult.

So again. Did the link you were provided with which attempted to give a definition of cult fail to do so?

If so how?

How do the SWP not meet the AFF definition of cult, or do they? What about the SP?

Again, I don't care if the definition is constructed by people with vile intentions, only if it's correct or not.