SWP expulsions and squabbles

[brogdale]

1) it wasn't an analogy - you said they were 'no different'

2) there really isn't a similar level of 'powerlessness'. How often have you been able to vote for your boss? (assuming you don't work for some vegan coop, which is a distinct possibility I guess). Can you leave your job without serious financial consequences? And, again, the CC really doesn't have much control at all over what happens at branch level.

Analogy 'debate' aside, no I've never had the opportunity to vote for my boss, but then again...has the membership of SWP had the opportunity to replace the CC?
My understanding was that the outgoing CC nominated the incoming with (congress) conference given the opportunity to agree their decisions.

 

[cesare]

then i apologise for that vile slur. must have you mixed up with someone else

You're thinking kippa not kidda.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Analogy 'debate' aside, no I've never had the opportunity to vote for my boss, but then again...has the membership of SWP had the opportunity to replace the CC?

Yes. Every year at conference. And if enough branches agree to it they don't have to wait for that - they can call an emergency conference.

My understanding was that the outgoing CC nominated the incoming with (congress) conference given the opportunity to agree their decisions.

Your understanding is wrong then - conference elects the CC. There's a slate system, and the CC will propose a slate, but any delegate can propose their own alternative slate if they so wish.

I have no desire to defend the SWP's internal regime, I just think criticism, if it's to be any use, should be accurate.

 

[cesare]

How long serving are the current CC?

And how many emergency conferences have been called in the past, say, 20 years?

 

[Random]

Yes. Every year at conference. And if enough branches agree to it they don't have to wait for that - they can call an emergency conference.



Your understanding is wrong then - conference elects the CC. There's a slate system, and the CC will propose a slate, but any delegate can propose their own alternative slate if they so wish.

I have no desire to defend the SWP's internal regime, I just think criticism, if it's to be any use, should be accurate.

Isn't it true that the branches and members have no way of organising or sharing info, apart from comms controlled by the CC? No personal exp or info on this tbh

 

[SpineyNorman]

How long serving are the current CC?

And how many emergency conferences have been called in the past, say, 20 years?

Not that long serving - the makeup of the CC has changed quite a lot over the last decade.

As far as I know no emergency conferences have ever been called.

I'm not trying to say that the SWP is especially democratic - it's not. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of comparing the SWP to a business, with the CC in the role of capitalist. It's simplistic and unhelpful.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Isn't it true that the branches and members have no way of organising or sharing info, apart from comms controlled by the CC? No personal exp or info on this tbh

Yeah pretty much - just to reiterate the SWP has enormous problems with internal democracy. But the suggestion that the membership have no means of removing the CC is simply wrong.

And of course recent events show that if the leadership tries to press too far members will open up lines of communication that the CC cannot control, much as they might try.

 

[butchersapron]

Not that long serving - the makeup of the CC has changed quite a lot over the last decade.

As far as I know no emergency conferences have ever been called.

I'm not trying to say that the SWP is especially democratic - it's not. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of comparing the SWP to a business, with the CC in the role of capitalist. It's simplistic and unhelpful.

But no CC slate has ever been rejected has it? And the number of competing slates since the 70s is around 4 i think. So in effect it's the same CC. (It's 5 delegates needed to offer a competing slate btw not one)

 

[Athos]

I wonder whether any of the DC will be on the next CC endorsed slate?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm not 100% sure on that to be honest, might possibly have been around the Respect thing but that's before my time.

But my point is that the CC does need consent, active or passive approval, to stay in place - which makes them very different from a boss. I think in order to understand how they remain in place for so long we're best looking at how that consent is manufactured and maintained, which means looking at the kind of stuff Random was hinting at above.

 

[cesare]

This issue of whether the theory of internal democracy works in practice is a bit contentious, eh?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I wonder whether any of the DC will be on the next CC endorsed slate?

At least two of them are almost guaranteed to be, since they're already CC members.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This issue of whether the theory of internal democracy works in practice is a bit contentious, eh?

Not for me it isn't - it clearly doesn't work in practice. But I'd prefer to be accurate in explaining how it doesn't work in practice,

 

[cesare]

Not for me it isn't - it clearly doesn't work in practice. But I'd prefer to be accurate in explaining how it doesn't work in practice,

Although, to be fair, bosses eg managers are demoted (or promoted out of direct harm's reach) or sacked if there're problems with the workforce. Too many grievances, drops in productivity, labour turnover, increased absenteeism etc; are all measures by which managers' effectiveness is measured. So there may not be a "democratic" election system but the outcome is similar.

 

[SpineyNorman]

But no CC slate has ever been rejected has it? And the number of competing slates since the 70s is around 4 i think. So in effect it's the same CC. (It's 5 delegates needed to offer a competing slate btw not one)

Just to come back to this one - I think the fact that the slate has to be voted on makes a difference to what slate the CC proposes, and that if they didn't have to be voted on I think there would probably have been even less change. Cos although the changes have been proposed by the CC itself some of them strike me as being forced because they knew if they took the piss too much they risked not getting the slate through. The removal of Delta from the CC for example, possibly Rees and German too - I know they were scapegoats for something they were all complicit in but the fact they saw the need for a scapegoat says something I'd have thought.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Although, to be fair, bosses eg managers are demoted (or promoted out of direct harm's reach) or sacked if there're problems with the workforce. Too many grievances, drops in productivity, labour turnover, increased absenteeism etc; are all measures by which managers' effectiveness is measured. So there may not be a "democratic" election system but the outcome is similar.

But then we're getting down to the kind of position that says all organisations where you have positions of authority are the same - I don't think that really gets you anywhere. And, as I've already said, a boss has far greater ability to sanction employees. And since the SWP depends on its members for its existence, and unlike a business there aren't unemployed people waiting to take their place, the members have greater ability to sanction the party/CC than an employee does his or her boss.

Anyway, any more news on this faction business?

 

[butchersapron]

Just to come back to this one - I think the fact that the slate has to be voted on makes a difference to what slate the CC proposes, and that if they didn't have to be voted on I think there would probably have been even less change. Cos although the changes have been proposed by the CC itself some of them strike me as being forced because they knew if they took the piss too much they risked not getting the slate through. The removal of Delta from the CC for example, possibly Rees and German too - I know they were scapegoats for something they were all complicit in but the fact they saw the need for a scapegoat says something I'd have thought.

But if they had been put on the slate they'd have been voted in. They would still be on the CC. Because - simply - the CC slate is what gets elected. That's the power of CC - and it's all formally democratic.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think that's true - the CC slate gets elected in part because they don't take the piss too much with their selections. SWP members aren't that cult-like.

 

[cesare]

But then we're getting down to the kind of position that says all organisations where you have positions of authority are the same - I don't think that really gets you anywhere. And, as I've already said, a boss has far greater ability to sanction employees. And since the SWP depends on its members for its existence, and unlike a business there aren't unemployed people waiting to take their place, the members have greater ability to sanction the party/CC than an employee does his or her boss.

Anyway, any more news on this faction business?

You seem to be thinking in purely economic terms wrt to sanctions ie dismissal and loss of pay is worse than expulsion.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think that's true - the CC slate gets elected in part because they don't take the piss too much with their selections. SWP members aren't that cult-like.

Perfect, the system works then! 40 years of CC slates being elected shows this. Or, if there was popular anger at Rees inclusion for example the whole CC slate would have been rejected wouldn't it? But how with no competing slate existing? With no competing slates how can any opposition make itself known?

 

[SpineyNorman]

One of the ways the CC can make sure their slate goes through is using the fact that there are some members of the CC who the vast majority of the membership think have to be on there. Callinicos for example, and when he was alive TC even more so. If they say they won't serve on a CC if the alternative slate wins they effectively kill it.

Most of these 'important' CC members get this credibility from the relationship they had with Cliff. But with Harman dead, Rees and German out of the way and so on there's only really the prof left with that kind of credibility. The authority those who served on the CC with TC wield is quite significant.

So I'm wondering if the fact that there is now only one of them left has in some way helped the opposition, since criticism of the CC doesn't look quite so much like criticism of the messiah. It's certainly increased the amount of power the prof has - he's the only one left who can swing a debate just by taking one side or the other as far as I can see.

This might be utter bollocks mind you, not really spent very long thinking about it.

 

[Athos]

A great system of checks and balances. The DC clears a member of the CC, then members of the DC are on the CC endorsed slate, which, if history is anything to go by is pretty much a shoo-in.

 

[cesare]

Perfect, the system works then! 40 years of CC slates being elected shows this. Or, if there was popular anger at Rees inclusion for example the whole CC slate would have been rejected wouldn't it? But how with no competing slate existing? With no competing slates how can any opposition make itself known?

There's a very very narrow timeframe for a slate not to be a secret faction, isn't there? Or have I misunderstood?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Perfect, the system works then! 40 years of CC slates being elected shows this. Or, if there was popular anger at Rees inclusion for example the whole CC slate would have been rejected wouldn't it? But how with no competing slate existing? With no competing slates how can any opposition make itself known?

I don't think the system works. That's not my point at all. Quite the opposite - I think it doesn't work. I just disagree on how it doesn't work.

I agree that the CC has far too much control over the SWP. My point is that it's worth looking at how they exert this control. And they do that by setting the terms of debate and where possible restricting it, and also by doing whatever they need to do to get themselves re-elected - if necessary sacrificing one of their own.

And if we're looking at a counterfactual I don't see why we can't assume that an opposing slate would have been proposed if the CC had selected R&G.

 

[SpineyNorman]

There's a very very narrow timeframe for a slate not to be a secret faction, isn't there? Or have I misunderstood?

That's the rules on factions rather than slates. As far as I know provided it's discussed openly they can't do anything about alternative slates (formally at least).

 

[discokermit]

i don't think spiny is by any means praising the democracy of the swp. he's saying it's different to the workplace, which it patently is to anyone but an idiot.

 

[butchersapron]

There's a very very narrow timeframe for a slate not to be a secret faction, isn't there? Or have I misunderstood?

Factions get a 3 month gap in which they are allowed to exist - in reality it's much less as the practical work takes times and can be hindered by the actions of the centre in terms of distribution of material, access to members (and and they need at least 30 members prepared to face the CCs wrath) and so on - no to mention that if you uncovered trying to make the tiniest of (trotsky-fascist no doubt!) plans to even talk about factions outside of this period then you - as the facebook four found out - are out on your ear pronto. Slates can be proposed at conference by any delegate with the support of five total - they don't necessarily have to be tied to a faction. The SWP constitution as adopted in 2009 after very deep revision and scrutiny is here.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think the system works. That's not my point at all. Quite the opposite - I think it doesn't work. I just disagree on how it doesn't work.

I agree that the CC has far too much control over the SWP. My point is that it's worth looking at how they exert this control. And they do that by setting the terms of debate and where possible restricting it, and also by doing whatever they need to do to get themselves re-elected - if necessary sacrificing one of their own.

And if we're looking at a counterfactual I don't see why we can't assume that an opposing slate would have been proposed if the CC had selected R&G.

I think the history of 40+ years of undefeated CC slates even at times of past tension and of internal disputes puts us on pretty safe ground in making the assumption that it would have happened even with those two on the CC approved slate. The other option is basically (and the CC knows and plays on this) is to effectively pass a vote of no confidence in the entire party, the parties perspective and the parties actions and initiative entire.

Part of how the CC manages to get itself in the position to do this is the informal ways that they use the formal power democratically handed to them. It's the stuff in the cracks, the stuff that random mentions and that you think we should be concentrating on - but it is also this formal democratic stuff that i've mentioned. To only see one side of that is to offer a partial picture - it's not all about behind the scenes pressure, bullying and enticement.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The only explanation for the ban on factions that makes any kind of sense is that it's designed to make it as difficult as possible to effectively oppose the CC. Looks to me like it's intentionally designed to make it as difficult as possible to organise one, and the ban on 'secret' factions, as it is, arguably makes it impossible to set up an official one in the first place.

 

[Athos]

All of which adds up to a situation in which is hard to challenge the CC, and where you're likely to suffer if you challenge and fail.