Oh, bollocks: it’s revolutionary defeatism as between Rees and Smith
We here at ‘Shiraz’ really don’t want to intrude into private grief, especially when so many thin-skinned comrades like Johnny Game-boy and Dickie “intellekshull” Seymour might get upset (and they’re upset so easily, the poor dears)…but…
…It seems that the crisis in the SWP is going from bad to worse. But we at Shiraz wouldn’t agree with the CPGB in giving support to the Rees faction (not unless we really hated him and wanted to fuck him up once and for all): no, our position is REVOLUTIONARY DEFEATISM.
Poor John Rees is being blamed for the SWP’s humilation at the hands of Galloway and his coterie of small businessmen and Islamo-fascists. But -surely – Smith and Callinicos went along with that at the time? And denounced those of us who used the word “communalism”?
A classic case of “revolutionary defeatism”: that means we hope that both sides inflict maximum damage opon each other.
[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_vSC_g-_gc&feature=player_embedded#]
Scenes from the battle for the SWP, with John ‘Basil’ Rees (in real life an expert swordsman) playing Sir Guy of Gisbourne (not the Sheriff of Nottingham, as is widely believed). Martin Smith as The Man In The Iron Mask.
charliethechulo said,
November 30, 2009 at 12:43 am
Have a look at this SWP internal bulletin, courtesy the CPGB
voltairespriest said,
November 30, 2009 at 9:23 am
The poor old CC must be sat there like Dr Frankenstein, watching their creation drive them mad and destroying them… oh it would be sad if it didn’t have such a ring of poetic justice…
voltairespriest said,
November 30, 2009 at 9:51 am
Also, Splinty has an excellent article here.
dave said,
November 30, 2009 at 12:50 pm
yeah it’s a really terrible state of affairs, things are literally falling apart. dreadful.
John Meredith said,
November 30, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I shall rush over to noted SWP blog ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ to get a less jaundiced version of events!
Strange … there doesn’t seem to anything new there except for an article about Jerusalem.
voltairespriest said,
November 30, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Of course. The first rule of SWP internal disputes is… you don’t talk about SWP internal disputes. Except in tones of futile sarcasm and denial (see Dave’s comment above).
martin ohr said,
November 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm
what’s strange about it all it’s just how apolitical the documents from both sides are. It all seems to still boil down to a beauty contest between rees/german V the rest of the SWP.
Or have I missed some vital nuance?
dave said,
November 30, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Just joshing ya
skidmarx said,
November 30, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The first link in your post doesn’t appear to work. Much like…[complete in amusing manner in 12 words or less]
charliethechulo said,
November 30, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Skidders: I think I’ve put it right, Matron!
Lobby Ludd said,
November 30, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“Or have I missed some vital nuance? ”
Can a nuance ever be vital?
Not Stupid, Just Wrong | JeremyStangroom.Com said,
December 1, 2009 at 1:38 am
[…] lot of people are pretty insulting about Richard Seymour. In one sense, this is understandable, because his political commitments are […]
entdinglichung said,
December 1, 2009 at 9:30 am
don’t support Rees or Smith – but without illusions!
skidmarx said,
December 2, 2009 at 4:11 pm
6. You are so right, except there is no internal dispute.
voltairespriest said,
December 2, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Of course there isn’t old boy, of course there isn’t…
Lobby Ludd said,
December 2, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Skidmarks, is there something wrong with internal ‘disputes’? Everybody knows that the ‘Left Faction’ has been formed pre-conference, and you can read the Internal Bulletins on-line. Or does the fact that the disagreements appear to be politically content free mean there is no ‘dispute’.
I think you are making the mistake of thinking that internal disagreement = ‘split’. Oh no, you’re right actually, for the SWP, internal disagreement does mean split (and/or expulsion).
I think a useful phrase (keep it in your locker, Skidmarks) is ‘anti-party elements’, if that’s too embarrassing, try ‘factionalists’.
skidmarx said,
December 3, 2009 at 11:41 am
Jesus fucking Christ, don’t you recognise sarcasm and denial when it’s shoved down your throats, your humourless fuckwits?[VP may have understood this, I’m not sure].
Keep what there is of you thought processes in your pants, Lobby Lad.
See there’s a full moon again.
Lobby Ludd said,
December 3, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“Keep what there is of you thought processes in your pants, Lobby Lad.”
Well, just to keep to the spirit of things – ‘You can stick it up your bollocks’.
As to the full moo-oo-oo-oon stuff, I checked. Strangely, you were right. Funny that I didn’t no-o-o-tice it.
Rosie said,
December 3, 2009 at 10:42 pm
How can you type, if your fingers are sprouting claws and are covered with fur?
skidmarx said,
December 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
18. Glad you’re getting into the spirit. I don’t find it that strange I was right, it happens every now and then.