Marxism 2002 conference November 22 -24 Dublin

by irritating nigel Fri Oct 25, 2002 08:47

Brian didn't want anyone to go to genoa either!
Probably why he objects to it being mentioned

by Brian Cahill Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:49

So 58 comments later, the same points have been made about the way in which the SWP organises their conference and all that we have seen in return is more abuse.

Nobody from the SWP seems to be willing to defend the way in which they organise their conference in a serious way, but they have shifted their emphasis away from personal abuse and claims that restricting speakers to their own members constitutes "reaching out" to ordinary people. Now they seem to prefer deliberately misinterpreting what their critics say in between bouts of saying "if you want anyone else to speak organise your own conference, nobody would come, Marxism is great..."

I'm dubious as to whether this altered emphasis constitutes much of an improvement.

"marxism" represents something of a missed opportunity. The SWP put a lot of work into building it each year and they expect a return on that investment. In other words they want an opportunity to lecture people unchallenged and they organise the event around a series of slightly hysterical rallies. They are perfectly entitled to do this. And others are perfectly entitled to point out that they are doing this.

(As a final aside if I am there this year I may run a book on the number of times the word "Genoa" is mentioned.)

by OK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:44

The technical group is not an alliance.

Its formed for the purposes of getting speaking time that we should have as of right.

Entering the group in no way confers agreement on any issues. SP will continue to be critical of SF, we will continue to criticise the corrupt politics of lowry, bertie, et al

by Enjoy a laugh Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:30

Of course the SP have a sense of humour. That jape with Michael Lowry was their best yet!

("Left Block, premature comrades! Oh hellow Michael, Can we do a deal!")

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:24

Oh, my sides are splitting.
Someone give Bernard Manning a ring and tell him to watch his back - there's a new kid on the block and he's not afraid to tell it like it is.

(Next up - SWP members are all students! SP members have no sense of humour! Sinn Fein members all have guns in the attic! I tell ya, material like this never gets old...)

by mal Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:22

the wit of ray ha ha ha

and andrew why moan about marxism after all anarchist are fond of telling us that we have little in common with each other so here ends another pointless moaning exercise.

by Weaver Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:20

I don't know if I can make the Grassroots Superdooper Anarchist Soiree you mention.

But the idea of sitting round in groups weaving raffia with running noses giving out yards against the leninists should get you a few in.

Best of luck! BTW who makes the tea?

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:57

Err Mal I thought the whole point of this thread was that the SWP are having a discussion on 'Is anarchism a Marxism an alternative to anarchis?' without there being an anarchist speaking. I'm pretty sure if we were invited to speak we would do so. I used to go along to Marxism on a fairly regular basis but quickly found out that a 3 minute intervention from the floor was a waste of time in combatting 30 minutes of misrepresentation. Plus as soon as you sat down the SWP chair would call half a dozen SWP members each of which would proceed to misrepresent what you just said. And then of course the speaker would come back at the end for another 5 minutes misrepresention. Only a masochist would keep that sort of thing up (and actually pay for the pleasure). I'd rather put the energy into building our own events run along rather different lines.

Like the others here have said the SWP are free to run marxism in any way they like, including using the methods above and of course banning people from distributing litreature putting their case inside the building. But don't expect the rest of us to pretend that Marxism is anything other then an extra long SWP rally and recruitment session.

For those interested there is a long and quite funny account of these problem in relation to the British SWP's Marxism events in the essay 'Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist adventures at Marxism 2001' to be found at http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/2001.html

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:49

God help the poor sods...

by mal Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:44

fine, however your comment that you are fixated by numbers hoever is a little misleading. As a member and a leading one at that of the WSM you i imagine would like to see more members of your organisation, to help in your workload and to help organise your events. Speaking at marxism would in someway help in that aim wouldn't it? after all some peoples first exposure to socialist politics will be at marxism so either you don't see a possability of building a large current of anarchists or that anarchism can only be the preserve of those who are already activists or politically motivated by it.

by Ben Dunne Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:30

Is it true that Michael Lowry will be speaking at the Socialist Party's event? Brian?

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:21

We are organising a conference of sorts this weekend in Belfast, the third in the last 12 months under the title of Grassroots Gathering. I'm sure it will be smaller then whatever attendence is claimed for Marxism but if I was as size fixated as you I'd join Fianna Fail! Unlike Marxism the Gatherings are arranged by a number of groups and feature not only real debates but also practical workshops. But you knew this already didn't you.

by mal Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:18

I shall be going to Marxism 2002. Brian cahill 'economist' outlook about workers should listen to their sp members means that in his view only economic issues and trade union issues are of any interest to workers, suggesting that politics and history are of no interst to workers, is amazing, though an extention of the community type politics the sp expounds.
The Anarchists feel that they are not being fairly represented and hence the moral outrage of ray. Of course they should go along and make their point of view heard. However to demand a hearing a bit rich, seeking the all the exposure but without the work. From the of they no this meeting is a critique of anarchism. nothing more nothing less i suggest they organise a meeting that night in dublin and leaflet Marxism, and let those who are intersted in their ideas go along.

And again brian when is your socialism 2002 event in ireland so those of us sympathetic to the swp but not members can go and make an assesment of sp 'near hysteria'.

by Den Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:08

The anarchists of their different hues have suddenly discovered an enthusiasm for telling the SWP how it should conduct its Marxism conference.

If they are so sure they know how this should be done why don't they organise something?

Is it that they know anything they organise will be smeall and just talking to themselves, but they would love to parachute into addressing the larger audience that the SWP will achieve at Marxism.

I think we should be told.

by Web watcher Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:03

Hey - that's at least 4 anarchist organisations mentioned yet theres only 3 organised anarchists.
Why would us leninists want to debate with you lot? Come the revolution we'll have to shoot such counter revolutionaries. Surely the purpose of the meeting is to point out what anachism is, this will help us identify anarchists and therefore save bullets in the long run. We don't need anarchist representatives at M2K to do that do we? C'mon be serious

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:55

- You suggest the SWP debate with WSM or ASF, or AFI.

Yes, because then the SWP would have a debate about anarchism that included an anarchist speaker. It doesn't really matter which of the anarchist groups the SWP invites to speak (they could even invite someone from abroad, if they liked) - either way, the debate would be more interesting, and those present would learn more about anarchism, than if there's only one speaker on the platform, and he has to hold up a sock puppet to explain the anarchist position.

It depends on what you want out of the meeting, obviously. If you want to find out if anarchism is an alternative to marxism* then the obvious meeting to hold is one with both anarchist and marxist speakers. If you want to find out what the SWP's line on anarchism** is, then there's no need to have anyone but an SWP speaker. The choice is yours.

- Why not all three (anarchist groups)?

Well, again, it depends on what the meeting is supposed to be about. If you want to learn about the differences between the WSM, the AFI, and the ASF, then you should invite all three of them to speak. If you just want to learn about the differences between anarchism and the SWP's variety of Leninism, then all you need is one anarchist speaker and one SWP speaker.

As many people have already said, its your conference, you can hold whatever meetings you like. You can give them (and the conference itself) whatever titles you like, however misleading. You can say anything you like from the platform, whether its true or not, and you can misrepresent the positions of others if you like - its your conference. The SWP is under no obligation to provide balanced debate, informed discussions, or a platform for dissent. If you guys want to organise a conference to tell people what the party line is on a range of issues, you're perfectly free to do so, and I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you.

* which is misleading enough, since some anarchists would say they're also marxists
** that's the SWP's version of anarchism, naturally

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:53

Pat is right that we all worked together in LAN but its also true that we hold regular events like Ideas and Action. At these - horror of horrors - people from the different groups explain there disagreements in certain areas. Sometimes this can even be heated (we've debated the whole ICP/free speech issue with AFA for instance at Ideas and Action).

Now I can understand why those who fantasise about a single party state led by a great leader break into a cold sweat at the idea. But perhaps the rest of us understand that real unity in action is built around frank and honest expression of disagreement rather then covering it up. And on the educational level that hearing two sides of an argument is always more informative then just hearing one!

by Den Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:26

You suggest the SWP debate with WSM or ASF, or AFI.

Why not all three then WSM can knock lumps out of ASF and AFI and ASF can denounce AFI and WSM and AFI can lashout out at WSM and ASF.

My friend John says he's an anarchist too but he hates all of them ;)

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:16

You are arguing that the meetings and speakers at Marxism depend on what people will find interesting, right?

So, do you think people are interested in finding out about anarchism?
If yes, don't you agree that a meeting with both SWP and WSM (or ASF, or AFI) speakers would be more interesting and informative?
If no, why have a meeting on anarchism at all?

by Violet Thu Oct 24, 2002 11:36

No foaming at the mouth, no hysteria rallies.
Some people are interested in some of the questions dealt with in the annual Marxism conference. That's what makes it the biggest event of its kind in Ireland.

And people come again and again.

I don't think the organisers are inclined to take the advice of our opponents and ditch interesting meetings on Trotskyism after Trotsky or the History of Bombing to facilitate sectarian "debates" which as these threads indicate rapidly degenerate into sectarian bun-fights.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps masses of people are queueing up to hear debates on the water charges or how wonderful SP trade unionists are or how the anarchists were done down by nasty Leninists throughtout history.

If so an event organised by the SP or the WSM would knock spots off Marxism 2002.

Funny neither has ever organised anything remotely comparable in breadth of approach or size of attendance. Nobody is stopping them trying.

The full timetable for Marxism is available in great numbers so nobody need be in the dark about what sort of meetings will be on offer.

My attitude is: if the programme interests you come along. If not spend your time some other way.

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:52

The more naive among us may have thought that some of the more interesting and informative discussions you could have at an event like Marxism would include subjects like the water charges and bin charges campaigns. Some poor fools may also have thought that there were subjects were members of other Irish revolutionary groups might perhaps have been more informative than an SWP speaker - or perhaps may have made an interesting counterpoint to an SWP speaker. What nonsense!

It turns out (entirely coincidentally, you understand) that the most interesting and informative meetings one could include in an event like Marxism happen to be those where the SWP is the only Irish revolutionary group on the platform. Everyone else is is just going to have to learn to address the wider concerns of large numbers of people. Like, you know, 'Trotskyism after Trotsky', the 'History of the Irish Communist Party in 1930's Ireland', and - an enduring topic of debate in _my_ local, let me tell you - 'Marx's theory of crisis'.

Any suggestion that this (and the infamous thrity-minute speeches) is because Marxism is about telling people the SWP line, rather than discussing socialist ideas, is objectively counter-revolutionary.

by bored Thu Oct 24, 2002 09:16

"the President of the CPSU or the left candidate for General Secretary of NIPSA or the deputy leader of BATU or any of the many Socialist Party members on the executives of trade unions would have rather more appeal as speakers to left inclined workers than Dave Lordan talking about the history of bombing."

So you compare the SP union members with a meeting on war, what about Mick O'Reilly, Pat Cahill and Jimmy Kelly aren't they trade unionist enough for you Irritable?

by hunter Thu Oct 24, 2002 03:06

yes brian. very good points indeed. there has been not one concrete swp reply. swp calling the sp sectarian. some words come to mind, "black", "kettle", "calling" and "pot".

and as for Alain MacSimion Vs Conor Kostick (is that his real name?? really??? cool name), now THAT i would pay to see, i really would. so come on SWP pull the finger out, if you are serious about your politics, then yo should have the balls to go one on one with with Alain. he is after all only one man! come on! (and by the way, im not an anarchist, this is just something i would love dearly to see)

by Brian Cahill Wed Oct 23, 2002 23:09

Well I appear to have touched a nerve here.

A few simple points have been made by a number of people commenting here:

1) That some of the sessions at this conference are probably worth going to, although not the hysteria-rallies.

2) That the SWP pretends the conference is about "debate", but it is in fact only willing to allow people who pose no threat to its r-r-revolutionary posturing onto platforms. Liberals and Greens are welcome and other socialists can even speak too as long as they don't represent an Irish organisation (and therefore a threat to the SWPs claim to be "the revolutionary party"), but no other Irish socialists and no anarchists at all are to be allowed near a platform.

Neither of these points are actually disputed by our SWP friends but yet they seem to have resulted in a lot of hissing and snarling. We have had the personal attacks and the it takes one to know one stuff but we haven't had a single honest response. The closest thing to an attempt to explain this policy is the claim that by limiting socialist speakers to their own members the SWP is reaching out to ordinary people beyond the sectarian swamp.

This claim represents a remarkable inversion of reality. Now call me biased here but I rather think that Joe Higgins or Clare Daly or the President of the CPSU or the left candidate for General Secretary of NIPSA or the deputy leader of BATU or any of the many Socialist Party members on the executives of trade unions would have rather more appeal as speakers to left inclined workers than Dave Lordan talking about the history of bombing. And I suspect that Gregor Kerr or Kevin McLoughlin talking about the lessons of the water charges struggle might have more appeal than Peadar O'Grady talking about Freud. Maybe I'm just an incorrigable sectarian, but I also find it difficult to believe that having say Alain MacSimoin represent anarchist ideas in a discussion with Conor Kostick would turn people away in droves. And that's not meant as an insult to Dave or Peadar or Conor.

The problem with having those people as platform speakers is not that they are less appealing to ordinary people than some SWP cadre. Quite the opposit. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the SWP will come across as the most coherent and effective left wing voice in the room (and I'm putting that as kindly as I can).

Now as I said earlier, the SWP has every right to decide who can and who can't speak from its platforms. But the sight of various SWPers foaming at the mouth because others point out that their choices don't really fit with their claims about the nature of their conference is just laughable.

by Violet Wed Oct 23, 2002 22:27

People come to hear informative well informed meetings. So, yes, there is a 30 minute or so introduction-- i don't think it is possible to give a comprehensive presentation in less than that.

Then as many people as possible are given an opportunity to ask questions or make a point.

They are asked to keep their comments to 3 minutes so as many people as possible can get in then the platform speaker summs up for five or ten minutes.

It sometimes happens therefore that perhaps 10 contributions from the floor is often all there is time for.

If you say anyone from, say, the WSM or the SP must be allowed a longer contribution, that is only possible by cutting down the numbers of other contributors and skewing the discussion to a sectarian ding dong.

It is elitist in my view to carve out people who are not representing some other organisation to create a spurious debate. Often the most interesting discussions and debates arise form the variety of contributions made.

Anyway that seems the fairest way of doing it and the success of the event each year testifies that lots of people find the format useful, interesting, informative and challenging.

Also the SWP is trying to pull away from the narrow confines of sectarian point scoring to engaging to the concerns of larger numbers of people influenced by reformism, environmental politics, anti-capitalism, class polarisation and revulsion at war.

But as the man said the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

by freedom Wed Oct 23, 2002 22:05

Plenty of debate? You must be joking. After half an hour presentation they give you 1 minute to make your point. If that's debate, Stalin's USSR was workers' paradise.

by Violet Wed Oct 23, 2002 21:44

Brian seems to think he's scored a cute debating point because nobody from SP or the more esoteric sects are on the platform.

My (not exhaustive) list of invited speakers demonstrated the diversity present. I don't know what including someone like youself to make your sectarian points would add to the discussion.

Most people tire very quickly of the sectarian bitching that characterises your contributions to these threads. I can't see why the SWP who want to rise above that shit would want to encourage it.

BTW I think Terry Eagleton would object to being called either foreign or a reformist.

Anyway you pays your money and takes your choice. My bet is that the organisers have pitched it about right and there will be a big turnout and plenty of debate and discussion as there always is.

by Irony is dead Wed Oct 23, 2002 21:21

Oh you are daring Brian boyo. I was simply referring to the Socialism 2002 posted on the SPEW sight. George Galloway ? Is he the headline speaker? A Reformist? We have no problem debating 'foreigners' or reformists. The simple point is there are more debates in Marxism 2002 in Ireland than the SPEW conference.

by Brian Cahill Wed Oct 23, 2002 17:13

Try reading what I actually wrote.

I said that I think that some of the meetings at "marxism" are probably well worth going to, but that no non-SWP speakers would be allowed except for reformists and people from other countries.

You then provide a list of reformists and people from other countries as "proof" that I am wrong and that some of the meetings at "marxism" are probably worth going to.

Do you want to run that by us again?

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 17:10

The WSM's Ideas & Action meetings last year included: a debate on the alternative to global capitalism, with a speaker from the WSM and another from Feasta; a debate on racism in Ireland, with speakers from the WSM and AFA; and a debate on building anarchism in Ireland today, with a WSM speaker, a guest speaker from the UK, and a speaker from the ASF (then SSF).

by Choker Wed Oct 23, 2002 17:05

Brian believes his opponents are "hacks" but he is a free spirited independent thinking individual. Dream on.

I believe a line up that includes Mike Davis, Francois Duval of the French LCR, Terry Eagleton, Rufundazione Comunista, Mick O'Reilly, Luke Choto from Zimbabwe and Eamonn McCann is pretty impressive.

Others may not agree. OK get a video out and few cans if you like.

Marxism 2002's line up is far better than the being bored by the tedium of the sort of anarchist troll so familiar to this site, or the jesuitical sectarianism of Brian Cahill and his SP friends. Most visitors to this site will have read your small minded nit-picking posts before and it wouldn't be fair to inflict a live performance on them.

by Brian Cahill Wed Oct 23, 2002 16:46

1) The Socialist Youth conference is not an equivalent to a "marxism" event. It is the organisation's decision making meeting, much like the SWP party conference (well except that every vote isn't unanimous at SY conferences...). Nobody is complaining that the SWP doesn't invite other groups to speak at its party conference.

2) The last open conference held by the English Socialist Party, "Socialism 2001", included a wide range of platform speakers from other left wing currents including an anarchist, two SWPers and a member of a left group inside the Labour Party.

So again, "irony" my SWP-hack friend, perhaps you would like to justify the pretence that "marxism" is something other than a party rally? All you have managed so far is a dishonest playground cry of "it takes one to know one".

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 16:33

i have to admit i found the "nora" one quite funny.

it is getting annoying though. there was another fake "king mob" post on the city jet thread.

i think theres a mixture o f merry pranksters & shit stirrers involved in the fakes.

myles na gopaleen used to do it (letters to papers) & when the outraged impersonee responded to the paper, he would denounce THEM as obvious fakes.

these 2 were obvious, but some are very like the stle of the person impersonated.

by Irony is dead Wed Oct 23, 2002 16:28

Unlike the SP conference in London or SY conference which is just packed with speakers outside of CWI...

by Brian Cahill Wed Oct 23, 2002 16:03

1) I honestly do think that there will be some things worth going to listen to at the "marxism" event. Mike Davis in particular will probably be very interesting. As long as you avoid the whipping-up-the-troops-to-hysteria rallies going is probably worthwhile.

2) The SWP are entitled to have any speakers they want at their meetings, but I do think that it is a little dishonest of them to talk about "marxism" as if it was something other than a party rally if the only speakers they are willing to have from the Irish far left are their own. All this stuff about being a forum for debate or a big gathering of Irish activists is just so much sales pitch. The only dissenting voices allowed on platforms are reformists or visiting from abroad or both.

by bored Wed Oct 23, 2002 15:34

I think all posts or comments where someone pretends to be someone else should be removed.
It discredits the site and whatever debate is happening.

There have been a few of these in the last few weeks aimed at those of different organisations and none.

There is a trend developing and I think it should nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand. Sooner or later one of these posts will do some damage to somebodies reputation.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 15:25

Pretending to be someone else is a pretty stupid way of arguing. If you have something to say, say it, don't put words into the mouths of those you disagree with.

by trollwatch Wed Oct 23, 2002 15:25

trolling.

by trollwatch Wed Oct 23, 2002 15:24

trolling.

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 14:31

get cde davis to do an extra talk on "late victorian holocausts"

go on! go on!

by ist Wed Oct 23, 2002 14:21

Mike Davis is speaking at Marxism on American workers: Prisoners of the American Dream.

see link above

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 13:55

"Pat C and Ray agree about something on the newswire.
There is something going on: black ops, El nino, lay-lines, dunno, but clearly something weird."

actually its "la nina"* which is causing it

*la nina is the "cold phase" of the "el nino southern oscillation"

for a fascinating book on how weather, climate, famine, the free market & imperialism conspired together to cause genocide in the 19th century read:"late victorian holocausts by mike davis (verso)
"Davis's writing fuses traditional history with more contemporary methods of cultural criticism. Though fond of the illustrative anecdote (Late Victorian Holocausts opens with a vivid account of former president Ulysses S. Grant gamboling through famine-stricken North Africa, India, and China), he never resorts to the simplifying Grand Narrative or Great Men view of history. One could almost say that the form of his work—disjunctive in its parts but cohesive in its entirety—mimics his two main subjects, urban culture and the environment"

-from a review in village voice.

by rose Wed Oct 23, 2002 13:38

"Everybody knows Marxism will be big. Far bigger than any equivalent conference organised by teh Lewt in Ireland."

My dick is bigger then yours, ya boo.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 13:13

I have a vague recollection that Wingfield's talk is along the lines of "Jesus Christ - Revolutionary". He used to read the newswire, maybe he can give us a sneak preview...

by Tatlin Wed Oct 23, 2002 13:02

I notice that Kevin Wingfield is talking about Jesus Christ.
Surely the SWP have a duty if they are going have a meeting on such a diverse thing as Christianity to invite the man himself to speak or at least send a representative to get a real debate.
Will the Lord be there in spirit or in person, has he even been invited or are the SWP carving him out.
Is it really appropriate for an atheist to be talking about religion?
Has the Pope been told?
I doubt it.
Typical!

by very bored Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:50

Pat C and Ray agree about something on the newswire.
There is something going on: black ops, El nino, lay-lines, dunno, but clearly something weird.

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:43

in spite of rays juvenile sophistry & even weaker satire; he does have a point.

if conor just speaks on anarchism then there may be the temptation for him to put of men of straw to be knocked down. rather than tilting against supposed anarchist positions, it would be far better if a debate took place against a real life anarchist.

so imho the swp should think again about inviting someone from wsm, af or asf.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:20

The SWP aren't preventing anarchists from having other meetings, and anarchists don't have an automatic right to speak at an SWP meeting. I haven't suggested anything different anywhere.

I'm just pointing out the fact that the SWP are having a meeting on anarchism without bothering to invite an anarchist along. Its especially note-worthy in view of the fact that at least one SWP member thought anarchists were cowards because they didn't engage in debates at Marxism. But the SWP are, of course, free to tell people anything they like about anarchism - its their meeting after all. They have no obligation to provide a balanced debate, to allow the expression of opposing points of view, or to describe anarchism at all accurately. Its their shilling, they can say whatever they like.

by Violet Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:04

Everybody knows Marxism will be big. Far bigger than any equivalent conference organised by teh Lewt in Ireland. Typically the dozen or so Irish sectarian anarachists want to hitch a free ride. Unsurprisingly the SWP are not disposed to indulge them

Nobody is infringing anarchist democratic rights. Nobody, least of all the SWP is stopping them organising their own meetings where they can tell everybody how wonderful they are, and the wonderful things they would do if the SWP didn't exist.

But anarchist parasitism reaches new heights when they insist they have a god-given right to be put on a platform organised and paid for by the SWP.

As it happens the Greens influence large numbers of people and are not a mere handful of sectarian chancers. I suppose that is why the SWP invited them to debate with them.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:41

Its only a couple of weeks since Dave Lordan (of the SWP) was accusing anarchists of being cowards for not coming along to Marxism to present their arguments. I'd have thought that there'd be at least one member of the SWP pressing to have anarchist voices heard when anarchism is being discussed.
I debate with Leninists all the time - you may have seen some of those debates on here. If I was organising a 'major conference' for debate and discussion, and scheduled a meeting on the politics of the SWP, I'd invite an SWP speaker to give their side. If you would rather learn the anarchist perspective on areas of disagreement by getting Conor Kostick to wave a sock puppet around, that's up to you...

"What's that Mr. Anarchist?"
"..."
"You think that organisation is bad?"
"..."
"Well, I have to disagree, we in the SWP believe that organisation is necessary for the revolution.
What do you say to that Mr Anarchist?"
"..."
"No answer? I thought not."
"..."
"And what do you say to the charge that you're only interested in criticising what other people do, and never build anything yourself?"
"..."
"Nothing?"
"..."
"Are you sure? Well then, I think that says a lot about anarchism. Don't you agree, Mr Anarchist?"
"..." (nods head)
"What's that Mr Anarchist? You've seen the error of your ways and want to join the SWP?"
"..." (nods head)
"Well you're in luck, because I just happen to have a membership form right here..."

by Irony is dead Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:24

Well e Ray zer, why not organise your own discussion between an anrchist and a marxist instead of squealing non-stop. Marxism is part debate with others but also a platform for the SWP to put forward Marxist ideas. If Ray you're not happy, tough shit - don't go.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:06

If they can invite a Green TD to talk about the environment, a trade unionist to talk about trade unions, someone from Refondazione Communista to about anti-capitalism, and a doctor to talk about the health service, they can invite an anarchist to talk about anarchism. If they're interested in discussion and debate it seems like an obvious step...

by very bored Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:53

And today's nonsense for people to get over excited about:

The SWP call a conference.
Scandalously, they have their members speaking at it.

Losing the Nice vote has obviously fried some brains.

by Angry Activist Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:33

I think that an event that is called 'Marxism 2002' should have more marxists than just SWPers.

Why are Anarchists not invited to the Anarchism debate?

It seems to me that Marxism 2002 will be shite with only SWP members and a handful of their supporters speaking.

by Amused Anti-Capitalist Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:30

I found many of the topics up for discussion at Marxism 2002 very funny.

Davey Lordon's 'History of Bombing' is one I'm looking forward to.

by (Death)Ray - WSM (ML) Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:11

I will address your conference on the Anarchist Cheka I'm forming to defend the Dictatorship of the Middle Class.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:05

I see Conor Kostick is the SWP speaker for that meeting. But there's no anarchist speaker listed. I know its short notice, but I'm sure if you asked the WSM they'd be happy to send someone along. After all, it would make for a much more interesting and educational meeting if there was an actual anarchist there to explain their perspectives, and if they could field questions, it could prevent some misunderstandings from creeping in. For example, some people might believe that anarchists are opposed to organisation, but the presence of a member of an anarchist organisation would soon clear that up, wouldn't it?

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 09:31

I noticed this meeting in the timetable
"Anarchism: An alternative to Marxism?"

Do you mind me asking who the SWP speaker will be at this meeting? And which anarchist organisation you've asked to give the anarchist alternative? (I'm sure there'd be no problem getting speakers from the AFI, ASF, or WSM, but you should be aware that there are some differences in their opinions)