Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP split?

There does seem to be an ongoing factional dispute. The SWP isn't used to those, so exactly what will come of it isn't clear.

Before the mid-1970s, factional disputes were common and didn't generally lead to splits. At any point from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the minority would have found themselves out on their collective ear in short order. From that point onwards, six or so sets of mass expulsions later, few people put their heads above the parapet and anyone who looked likely to do so tended to find themselves booted out before they could begin to organise.

This ongoing dispute is new territory for them. It's the first time there's been an organised opposition in 25 years or more. It's the first time in 35 or so years that an opposition has involved leading figures in the organisation. It also comes after a bout of soul-searching about the lack of internal democracy in the organisation. There simply aren't any recent precedents to point to, so it really isn't clear how they will deal with the situation.

So far it seems that a website - which was not pushing openly factional material or criticising the SWP leadership, but which was apparently run by people supportive of the minority - has been shut down and two students, apparently associated with the minority, have been suspended. That tends to point towards an oncoming purge, but not necessarily. It could simply be a warning shot across the bows of the minority.

While the logic of events so far points towards a split, it's not clear to me that a split is in the interests of either factional leadership. Does anyone really think that Rees et al, are looking to start their political lives anew with a group of a hundred people or whatever? Similarly, if the minority can be handily defeated at conference and then forced to dissolve for nine months, it may be more in the interests of the current leadership to seem relatively magnanimous. Then again, the Respect split wasn't in their interests but that didn't stop them from escalating that situation until one was inevitable.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
There does seem to be an ongoing factional dispute. The SWP isn't used to those, so exactly what will come of it isn't clear.

Before the mid-1970s, factional disputes were common and didn't generally lead to splits. At any point from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the minority would have found themselves out on their collective ear in short order. From that point onwards, six or so sets of mass expulsions later, few people put their heads above the parapet and anyone who looked likely to do so tended to find themselves booted out before they could begin to organise.

This ongoing dispute is new territory for them. It's the first time there's been an organised opposition in 25 years or more. It's the first time in 35 or so years that an opposition has involved leading figures in the organisation. It also comes after a bout of soul-searching about the lack of internal democracy in the organisation. There simply aren't any recent precedents to point to, so it really isn't clear how they will deal with the situation.

So far it seems that a website - which was not pushing openly factional material or criticising the SWP leadership, but which was apparently run by people supportive of the minority - has been shut down and two students, apparently associated with the minority, have been suspended. That tends to point towards an oncoming purge, but not necessarily. It could simply be a warning shot across the bows of the minority.

While the logic of events so far points towards a split, it's not clear to me that a split is in the interests of either factional leadership. Does anyone really think that Rees et al, are looking to start their political lives anew with a group of a hundred people or whatever? Similarly, if the minority can be handily defeated at conference and then forced to dissolve for nine months, it may be more in the interests of the current leadership to seem relatively magnanimous. Then again, the Respect split wasn't in their interests but that didn't stop them from escalating that situation until one was inevitable.
Click to expand...

Where do the losers go though? It's pretty clear there's not enough political maturity within the party for the defeated to stay in the party, or for the winnners to it leave alone. That's why people are picking up a diff dynamic off this one. That fact that it might be in the longer/larger interests of both groups not to do this doesn't seem to count right now. If they don't leave it's eternal boring war.
 
butchersapron said:
Her said 'a' trot org.
Click to expand...

I know. Most Trotskyist organisations of any size aren't obviously more prone to splits than any other political organisation. The British SWP has been extremely stable for 25 years. The Socialist Party last had a split 15 odd years ago. Here in Ireland we've never had one.

Whether you think Trotskyist organisations in general are prone to splits or not, that kind of generalisation doesn't tell us anything about the British SWP, which self evidently hasn't been prone to splits in a very long time.

On your other point:

I can see your logic, but I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. I'm just not sure that Rees et al have the energy to go it alone at this point and so think that they may be very careful indeed to stay well within their formal rights, shit though those rights are. If they do that, then I think it's entirely possible that the leadership will be content with marginalising them and forcing them to shut up shop for nine months. Still, as the Respect split showed, these people are capable of insanely escalating their arguments to a split at a moment's notice.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
So far it seems that a website - which was not pushing openly factional material or criticising the SWP leadership, but which was apparently run by people supportive of the minority - has been shut down and two students, apparently associated with the minority, have been suspended. That tends to point towards an oncoming purge, but not necessarily. It could simply be a warning shot across the bows of the minority.
Click to expand...

Sorry, and not taking the piss, but how on earth does the SWP get to shut down a website?
 
by the CC telling them to shut it down or be expelled.

did anyone read it before it went? the front page is still available on google cache, but that looked pretty darned dull
 
Are there any real political differences behind it or is it just John Rees sulking?
 
The Rees faction will split I think depending on how true this is - they have control of the STWC, and as far as I know have several full time positions within it, this can provide them with jobs and an income, and it may be that they got an inkling they were going to be replaced as the SWP reps at STWC following the conference, so they are acting to defend their positions?

They would then presumably form a small org within the STWC, a bit like Hoveman, Ovenden and Wrack have done within RESPECT...
 
I see that the Weekly Worker, in a rare return to "decent gossip" form, has SWP Internal Bulletin 1 on its website this week. It also adds a few details and its own spin in its article. It seems that Rees et al were vote down 180 or to 11 at the last "Party Council", which would seem to indicate that his new faction will be rather easily defeated.

The bulletin itself is mostly deeply tedious. It gives the text and sponsors of the Rees backed motion about "No Platform". It also mentions that the SWP claim 2,900 members who pay some sort of regular sub. Other than that not a whole lot really. One amusing aside reveals that West London SWP has 220 people on the books and 12 actual branch activists.
 
butchersapron said:
If they don't leave it's eternal boring war.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Can't see any outcome post conference other than the faction leaders shut up (unlikely)/leave/be expelled. Permanent coexistance just isn't in the Cliffite mentality. Rightly I'd argue but there you go.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Sad if true. But sadder that you find it amusing to find that out about another group of lefties.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, you have to have some sense of the absurd if you are going to survive on the far left. And a branch of 12 with a paper membership of 220 is as absurd as it gets.

To be fair, I think that the 220 might also include some people who are involved in a campaign or in a union but who don't attend their branch. It just struck me as one of the most ludicrous examples of the perenial complaints of branch activists in left wing groups - being given lists of "members" who don't in fact have anything to do with the organisation.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Absolutely. Can't see any outcome post conference other than the faction leaders shut up (unlikely)/leave/be expelled. Permanent coexistance just isn't in the Cliffite mentality.
Click to expand...

It used to be in their mentality. It's not inconceivable that it could be again.

This is basically new territory for them - their machine has been so good at getting rid of dissidents before they can organise or grow that there hasn't been a major debate, let alone a major split in decades. It's a very long time since they threw out a sizeable chunk of people in one go.

A split may be the most likely outcome, but I don't think it's inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
TilburyBhoy
CWI Split?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
188
Views
22K
rekil
rekil
T
SWP trash AWL stall at Marxism, accusations of violent threats
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Magnus McGinty
Magnus McGinty
Magnus McGinty
Are the SWP a State Asset?
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Beats & Pieces
B
brogdale
Labour Party split watch
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
wheelie_bin
W
Back
Top Bottom