Can I take it, then that you, “JOHNNO” aren’t going to attempt to defend yourself against my charge that you are a liar?

OK, liar.

I wouldn’t accuse the SWP of dishonesty on China, quite the opposite, they are fairly consistent.

But I think it’s strange how some of their ex-members have taken up with Reg-Birchism on steroids, but I’m not sure you can blame that on the SWP.

If I were to accuse SWP members of anything it is political amateurism, the inability to defend their positions with consistent, logical and prolonged arguments, in the wider world.

Invariably what you get from SWPers (and some of their weirder ex-members) is a few paragraphs of slogans mixed in with ill thought out ideas, some questionable conclusions or just the odd few student union snide comments.

Nowadays very rarely do you run across quality discussions that involve SWPers, they simply can’t keep up, a few contributions and once their own contradictions have been pointed out, they shuffle off no wiser than when they entered.

That hasn’t always been the case.

25-30 years ago, the SWP had some excellent members, coherent socialists, splendid trade unionists, principled feminists, etc but that has long since passed.

I don’t recalled “being proved wrong, Johnno. Maybe you’s care to remind me.

But, more to the point, please justify this:

“But Clive, Denham has been retrospectively saying that Iraq has been a roaring success”:

When and where did I say that, or anything that could be possibly construed as meaning that?

Please reply, or (once again) I’ll have to call you a liar. Even though, as I said, I think the real point is that you’re incredibly ignorant and stupid.

http://marxists.org/archive/harman/1986/xx/eastwest.htm

I think you called me a liar last time and were proved wrong. You are an arch imperialist, in league with the bourgeois. It could be argued that you are a spokesman for labour aristocracy but really you are not that important. You are a foul mouthed drunken semi-literate irrelevant little tosser and the error I have made is inflating your importance. I will refrain from this in future.

Dave’s trying to treat his readers as adults who don’t need spoon feeding, but rather can see his points without him WRITING them in BIG letters.

Dave included a link in his post to illustrate it:

“SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND GRIEVANCES IN TIBET”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2063

I suspect that’s what Dave means, various activists on or around SU blog who are opposed to the occupation of Iraq, but not the occupation of Tibet by China.

Surely, that point is fairly easy to see?

If you scan a range of associated blogs you will invariably find some fawning or excuses for brutality by the Chinese ruling classes, self-evidently, it won’t be put like that, but that’s what it is.

It is not too complex, if you can be troubled to make an effort to understand Dave’s points.

The ‘Morning Star’, for a start, Lobby.

And it matters because the ‘Morning Star’ is since the collapse of Soviet imperialism) funded by the subs of UK rank and file trade unionists.

Yes, it must take a lot of double-think. So name the ‘guilty’ names, tell us why they matter.

By the way, it is best to oppose the ruling class where you live, not the ruling class that exists outside of your influence.

Just a very ignorant and ill-educated (politically) person.

As Clive suggested: “read some Lenin”.