wp swp sp read laugh haha ha ha

by Ray Wed Aug 28, 2002 15:16

...and it shouldn't be here.

by Mark Wed Aug 28, 2002 16:26

What about the cult that is the Nation State then. We contribute wealth which we don't see the benefit of!

by badman Wed Aug 28, 2002 17:32

"This article argues that the phenomenon of political cultism is more widespread than is normally assumed. In particular, it focuses on the ideological and organizational dynamics of left-wing groupings that fall within the Trotskyist tradition, and argues that these dynamics predispose such groupings to cultic practices. "

http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no1_98/political_left.htm

by E Wed Aug 28, 2002 18:01

this article should be read by all political activists so we can correct the mistakes that occur too often in political organisations of any kind (Leninist or otherwise!). We can all recognise grains of truth contained in the case study about the CWI sadly.

E

by Badman Wed Aug 28, 2002 18:35

Although it does read scarily like a description of current SWP practice in Ireland.

by OK - SP Wed Aug 28, 2002 18:42

That article is a prime example of an attack on the CWI. During the course of the 1980's the CWI (then the Militant Tendency) gained significant support among workers and in the labour movement generally.

Militant and others on the left in the labour movement were a real threat to the Labour leadership. We were also a major threat to the capitalist class itself as we played a key role in the Miners' strike and the Poll Tax.

We made plenty of friends, and plenty of enemies. There are plenty of examples of attacks on the CWI by the capitalist press, politicians etc.

Anyone that has any experience of the CWI will know that we are not a cult. We do not worship a leader, we dont even have 'a leader'. All our members do not agree on everything and there are debates within the organisation, nationaly and internationaly. For example the ongoing debate that has been going about China.

by Badman Wed Aug 28, 2002 19:02

Recognise a cult, lesson 2 information control:

"Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged

Critical information that members hear about is typically ridiculed and over-simplified; often the credibility of the source or author of the information is attacked rather than the information itself (which is often truthful.)"

From "How Opus Dei is Cult-like"

by Des Wed Aug 28, 2002 19:16

If you are seriously comparing the Socialist Party to Opus Dei, then your condition is not bad, it is critical. Please do not despair, there are shrinks all over the country who can help.

by Badman Wed Aug 28, 2002 19:27

This point can be used to demonstrate that Opus Dei is a cult, since it is a general attribute of cults. I'm obviously not comparing opus dei to the CWI.

You on the other hand seem to be doing the following:

"Critical information that members hear about is typically ridiculed and over-simplified"

by this is bs Wed Aug 28, 2002 21:35

the swp people are not all that bad - have a few beers with them they are like anyone else

this constant unending propaganda on indymedia.ie against the swp is getting a bit boring.

lots of reasons to criticize them, but this campaign by anarchists or who ever is getting a bit silly, dont you think?

grow up

by clodaghvandervan Wed Aug 28, 2002 23:09

yous took off my student wankers post, yet yous allow anti semite bollix and vic's ma's pussy etc on. who the fuk are the swp, sp, never heard of them or come across them.

by OK - SP Thu Aug 29, 2002 00:07

To say that the SP are cults is mad!

SP is a political party with a real base among the working class. FOr heaven's sake we nearly won 2 seats in the National Parliament this year!

I find it hard to believe that a cult will get the support of thousands of ordinary people.

Within the Party there are healthy debates and members are free to think for themselves.

It is wrong to say that the SP, SWP or the WP are cults. When people talk of Trotskyist cults I think they have the likes of the Sparts or some of the small WRP splinter groups.

by Badman Thu Aug 29, 2002 00:48

Merely that they had some practices that are characteristic of cults. The linked article makes a pretty good argument for treating the secret, entryist militant group of the 1980's as a cult. I'd be interested to hear any refutations of the points made in the article rather than just people repeating "we're not a cult".

As E. notes above, the article linked to is well worth having a look at for any activist, trot, anarchist, christian-pacifist or whatever, and it is worth asking yourself whether your group (formal or not) has any of these unhealthy characteristics.

From reading the article myself, there are several points in it that made me worried about the SWP in its present manifestation. Note that I'm not treating it the same as the SP, who on the whole appear much more sane to me. Certainly I'd say that the SWP comes nowhere near to being a pure cult, like one of the loony religious sects, but were I an SWP member, there are many points in this interesting essay which would give me pause for thought and lead me to question some of the practices of the group.

For example does the following passage sound familiar to any SWP member / former member?

"Tobias and Lalich (1994) argue that cults have only two real purposes: recruiting other members and raising money. These certainly emerge as central preoccupations of the CWI. Crick (1986) cites a former member as follows on some of these issues:

'A lot of it boiled down to selling papers. The pace didn’t bother me, but one day I suddenly realized that after a year my social circle had totally drifted. I had only political friends left, simply because of the lack of time. There’d be the...branch meeting on Monday evening, the Young Socialists meeting another evening, "contact" work on Friday night, selling papers on Sunday afternoon, ...'

Such a level of activity could be physically and emotionally ruinous, and required members to redefine their entire existence in terms of their membership in the CWI. Crick cites another interviewee as recalling:

'The most abiding memories of life (in the CWI) are filled with the sheer strain of it all. If you were even moderately active, you would be asked to attend up to six or seven boring meetings in one week.

You built up an alternative set of social contacts as much as political activity. It can easily take over people’s lives. It became obsessive. They were almost inventing meetings to attend. There was a ridiculous number of meetings held to discuss such a small amount of work. Even if you didn’t have a meeting one evening, you’d end up drinking with them.

The kind of commitment...required was bundled together in the form of highly alienating personal relationships. You had to make sure your subscriptions were paid and your papers sold so as not to feel guilty when you chatted to other members. The only way out seemed to be "family commitment" and the unspoken truth that as soon as a young...member got a girlfriend he either recruited her or left. (p. 182)"

by Brian Cahill Thu Aug 29, 2002 03:03

The essay was a politically motivated hatchet-job and one of the main sources was Michael Crick's earlier politically motivated hatchet job.

The Militant didn't have deified leaders, it encouraged an atmosphere of critical thought and ... look, really this kind of nonsense doesn't really deserve a serious response. Very few political organisations on the left have been cults. Even the SWP, which certainly deserves some criticism for its relentlessly upbeat group-think, is not a cult or anything like a cult.

I don't deny that a left wing group can function as a cult - the old WRP in Britain would be a good example as would Lyndon LaRouche's people in America. The thing is though that those kind of organisations very quickly gained the reputation amongst other leftists of being fucking nuts.

The only valid point made by the hatchetmen putting forward their "cult" theories is hardly a great insight: it is possible to get involved in something you care about greatly, to see the need for various activities to take place, to take more on than you can manage and to damage your social life in doing so. Is that really news? That can happen in a political organisation of any kind or with a hobby or in pretty much any sphere of human activity.

Is mise le meas
Brian Cahill

by Annoyed Activist Thu Aug 29, 2002 11:37

clodagh

imc acts in mysterious ways. sometimes they'll delete 6 republican articles on spurious grounds yet leave up 6 anti ira pieces.

you never know what might be put up about you. beware there are some vengeful demi-gods in imc.

some damn fine decent, humane, courteous, understanding, empathic, philantrophic people involved as well

aa

by John Thu Aug 29, 2002 13:46

"Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma"

Four out Five.

As far as the rest of the article is concerned it's more or less spot on. Except, to the best of my knowladge, the SWP have not tried Hypnosis
yet. Or have they?

by babsdebrawl Thu Aug 29, 2002 16:59

i got that out of the daily mirror, its common knowledge, no secret, no threat to national security? nazis David norris and neil acourt have requested to be moved to the VPU of belmarsh prison, they would like to share cells with paedophiles, touts and sex offenders, thats how brave the aryan youth are, common knowledge hitler too enjoyed the firm feel of a young boys buttocks.

by anarcho Thu Aug 29, 2002 21:29 anarcho at geocities dot com

hello all

"OK - SP" states:

"SP is a political party with a real base among the working class. FOr heaven's sake we nearly won 2 seats in the National Parliament this year!

"I find it hard to believe that a cult will get the support of thousands of ordinary people."

The Catholic Church anyone? Or, indeed, any church... And it is possible for thousands of
ordinary people to passively support anything, sadly enough.

"Within the Party there are healthy debates and members are free to think for themselves."

Which is noted in the article, when its claimed that the party is "democratic" but reality is
different... repeating something is hardly convincing.

Brian Cahill writes:

"The essay was a politically motivated hatchet-job and one of the main sources was Michael Crick's earlier politically motivated hatchet job."

Politically motivated? In a psychology magazine? The lengths the enemies of Marxism will go to!

"The Militant didn't have deified leaders, it encouraged an atmosphere of critical thought and ... look, really this kind of nonsense doesn't really deserve a serious response."

How long *was* Ted Grant on the central committee for?

"Very few political organisations on the left have been cults. Even the SWP, which certainly deserves some criticism for its relentlessly upbeat group-think, is not a cult or anything like a cult."

I think the point is that these groups have certain cult-like qualities. Its interesting that the eye-witness
accounts are dismissed out of hand, as are the factors at work in a democratic centralist organisation
which encourage cult-like tendencies.

Ah, well, every cult denies it is a cult, does it not? Personally, I would not dismiss the article.
It makes lots of serious points. To dismiss it as an attack on the CWI (an attack inspired by its
successes against capitalism, moreover -- a mind set noted in the article itself, ironically
enough!) misses the point. The CWI was used as a case study, as an example.

by this is swp bs Thu Aug 29, 2002 23:55

It you swp heads think that those kind of silly appeals will censor swp critical views and opinions, you are dead wrong. There is much more to come bs, and the criticism will not stop untill the swp learns a few lessons, and makes the appropiate changes. As there seems little chance of that happening, you will have to listen to much more criticism you can of course keep making your futile appeals 'to turn the other cheek and love the swp' if it makes youse feel better.

by hs - sp Fri Aug 30, 2002 00:01

With these definitions anyone could be a cult, including anarchists, think about it dogmatic people who always KNOW they are right and have never made a mistake.

by OK - sp Fri Aug 30, 2002 02:37

You claim tha the catholic church is a cult. Furthermore you claim all religious denominations are cults.

You also say that members of churches 'passively' support their religion. I thought cult members are not passive? I think it is correct to say most Catholics are passive, this proves the fact they are not a cult! However I would agree that within the church there are cult groups.

Anarcho, you also claim that in practice the SP is not democratic, where is your evidence? give me a solid example.

Furthermore you claim that because Ted Grant was on the Editorial Board of Militant for a long time it makes him a Deified Leader. Members of Militant did have their differences with the Editorial Board down through the years, and the leadership was accountable.

Finally I think you can put most, if not all attacks, on the CWI as being hatchet jobs. The rightwing where seriously threatened by the Rise of Militant and the leftwing of the Labour movement in the 1970s, and 80s. The Miners' strike, the poll tax, the struggle of Liverpool City Council etc were all struggles that seriously challanged the capitalist class.

by bill Fri Aug 30, 2002 13:45

didn't militant piss off large numbers of the good people of Liverpool during the 80's, leading to demonstartions againt militant?

by Chekov Fri Aug 30, 2002 16:08

It is about the militant group of the 1980's. It is hard to see what hatchet purpose it could serve. The personal accounts quoted in the article do provide strong evidence of a number of cultish characteristics in the internal life of militant in the 1980's. How do the SP defenders explain these? The article's hypothesis, that democratic centralism is a form of organisation that is particularly susceptible to developing cultish characteristics, seems plausible to me and I found the argument developed in the article to be reasonable and credible.

Rather than attacking the motivations of the author, it would be better to give alternative interpretations of the evidence cited. The point isn't whether the SP or SWP are a cult, it's how many unhealthy cultish characteristics they exhibit.

by OK - SP Fri Aug 30, 2002 16:16

Bill, who are 'the good people' of Liverpool? I suppose you mean the respectable business community, chambers of commerce, the Business confederations, 'respectable' politicians, church leaders, etc. The Liverpool situation was a fight by the workers of the City Council and their elected representatives against Thatcherite cut-backs and a Tory assault on local democracy.

Checkov, If you read previous postings you will see that 'SP defenders' outline the reasons why there would be vicious hatchet jobs against us.

When most people talk of political cults they talk of the Sparts, or some of the various WRP splinter groups. Not the Socialist Party, or SWP for that matter

by Tel - swp Fri Aug 30, 2002 16:28

C'mon there are a few cults in ireland, they can be found under the names IBEC, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, The Catholic Church, Youth Defence and the Guards.

by doheochai - sp Fri Aug 30, 2002 20:10

I have to say I haven't laughed so much in a long time while reading this rubbish by Denis Tourish. I had been aware that it had been written but had not bothered to read it until now.

Just for the record, Denis Tourish tries to argue that this thesis is done in an impartial and analytical fashion. What he fails to mention right throughout the entire 12 pages is that he was a member of the CWI in the early 1980's. He left in circunstances that were far from unhappy and clearly needs to exorcise some demons of his own through his rantings.

Michael Crick's book is a different kettle of fish. I was intended as a hatchet job on the "Militant" during the period of the Miner's strike and the "Militant" controlled Liverpool City Council.

For socialists a much better read is "Liverpool - A City That Dared to Fight"

To see what really happened visit the liverpool 47 Website

by guessagain - unionofbankrobbers Fri Aug 30, 2002 21:43

i never heard of the swp, or sp, whoever the fuk they are, nobody else has either, but i suppose you must purge the world of them anyway, who are they? are they anything to do with inla/iplo/workers party? yur only somebody if you've got a gun, if yur not in, you cant win.

by Des Fri Aug 30, 2002 22:39

I suggest you keep reading the beano, this discussion is far too advanced for you.

by studentwankers Fri Aug 30, 2002 22:56

you dont have to be genius to know this discussion is boring and started by MI5/MI6/FRU bores, who cares about the swp,wp,sp, inla,irsp,iplo nobody, only MI5/MI6/FRU. nobody in the real world cares about imaginary petty infighting bitching between different sp/swp/mi5/mi6/fru student wankers.