SWP expulsions and squabbles

[emanymton]

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.

This 3 moth thing seems to be a myth, I believed that was the case but someone on Lenin's tomb said it wasn't in the constitution, and I have checked and they seem to be right. A faction can form at any point between one conference and the next, but the only real discussion period is in the 3 months before conference.

 

[butchersapron]

This is worth a read: The Origin of the ‘Slate System’

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

Still not completely with you on this - part of the reason why there's been 40 years of undefeated slates is that they've made concessions where necessary. I don't see how either of us could prove what we're saying is true without a time machine though. And the second sentence is only true if there's no alternative slate proposed, surely?

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.

I agree - and the ban on factions outside the conference period is a big part of this. But brogdale seemed to be suggesting that all this stuff stems directly from their formal powers, which is just plain wrong.

The thing is, anyone who's ever paid any attention to the SWP knows about the constitutional issues. It's been gone over so many times that people on both sides of the debate could easily predict what the other side will say. The 'stuff in the cracks' is interesting because it's not been the object of as much scrutiny and because it changes over time in a way that the constitution doesn't.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

Of course. It's still nothing like the relationship between worker and boss though, which is what I was originally responding to.

 

[emanymton]

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.

No I think your right. Also while I may have had rose tinted specs at the time I don't feel the current CC has as much quality on it as it did 10 years ago and I think most of the membership knows it. With Cliff, Harman, Rees and German gone there is really only Callinicos left who has much intellectual authority (if that's a viable concept) left.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This 3 moth thing seems to be a myth, I believed that was the case but someone on Lenin's tomb said it wasn't in the constitution, and I have checked and they seem to be right. A faction can form at any point between one conference and the next, but the only real discussion period is in the 3 months before conference.

I don't think that's true. Factions are definitely ordered to dissolve themselves after conference and when I've talked to people in the SWP they've defending it rather than denied it.

 

[butchersapron]

This 3 moth thing seems to be a myth, I believed that was the case but someone on Lenin's tomb said it wasn't in the constitution, and I have checked and they seem to be right. A faction can form at any point between one conference and the next, but the only real discussion period is in the 3 months before conference.

Surely they are only allowed in that 3 month pre-conference discussion period? Or else why were the F4 expelled for the crime of secret factionalising outside of that period - and why was it justified on the grounds that they had breached the constitution?

Permanent or secret factions are not allowed.

 

[Athos]

Of course. It's still nothing like the relationship between worker and boss though, which is what I was originally responding to.

It's not an identical relationship. But neither is it entirely dissimilar. Both embody an imbalance of power.

 

[emanymton]

Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.

 

[butchersapron]

Still not completely with you on this - part of the reason why there's been 40 years of undefeated slates is that they've made concessions where necessary. I don't see how either of us could prove what we're saying is true without a time machine though. And the second sentence is only true if there's no alternative slate proposed, surely?

And there isn't another slate 90% of the time. I can think of reasons why this might be case other than this is due to skillful manouvering of the CC - the 'in the cracks' stuff that you want to examine being pretty high on the list.

I agree - and the ban on factions outside the conference period is a big part of this. But brogdale seemed to be suggesting that all this stuff stems directly from their formal powers, which is just plain wrong.

The thing is, anyone who's ever paid any attention to the SWP knows about the constitutional issues. It's been gone over so many times that people on both sides of the debate could easily predict what the other side will say. The 'stuff in the cracks' is interesting because it's not been the object of as much scrutiny and because it changes over time in a way that the constitution doesn't.

Maybe then this is a matter of what your experience of criticisms of this form of organisation is and what direction you're coming at them from - because to me, the stuff 'in the cracks' has not only been gone over as much as the formal stuff but cannot be understood without it.

 

[butchersapron]

Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.

It wouldn't be permanent, it would just exist 364 days of the year. Yeah, i can well see the CC buying that.

 

[emanymton]

Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.

Here is everything said about factions in the SWP constitution. Nothing about when they can be formed just that it needs 30 members

(10) Factions
If a group of party members disagrees with
a specific party policy, or a decision taken
by a leading committee of the party, they
may form a faction by producing a joint
statement signed by at least 30 members
of the party.
A faction will be given reasonable facili-ties to argue its point of view and distribute
its documents. These must be circulated
through the National Office, to ensure that
all members have the chance to consider
them.
Debate continues until the party at a
Special or Annual Conference reaches a
decision on the disputed question. Perma-nent or secret factions are not allowed.

 

[emanymton]

It wouldn't be permanent, it would just exist 364 days of the year. Yeah, i can well see the CC buying that.

Well if you tried to form a new faction over the same issue I am sure they would deem it a permeant faction.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's not an identical relationship. But neither is it entirely dissimilar. Both embody an imbalance of power.

So does pretty much every social relationship, so it doesn't get you very far at all.

 

[cesare]

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.

He clearly isn't. But he's willing to post rather than just a couple of one-liners here n there, which makes it easier to have a conversation with him. For myself, I don't think he's defending the SWP but maybe an insight into Leninist organisations. So it's interesting and I hope he doesn't take my questions/observations as some sort of personal attack on him because they're not.

 

[Athos]

So does pretty much every social relationship, so it doesn't get you very far at all.

To a greater or lesser extent.

 

[SpineyNorman]

And there isn't another slate 90% of the time. I can think of reasons why this might be case other than this is due to skillful manouvering of the CC - the 'in the cracks' stuff that you want to examine being pretty high on the list.

Sure, it's not the only conceivable reason. But it's one of them - and a very plausible one IMO

Maybe then this is a matter of what your experience of criticisms of this form of organisation is and what direction you're coming at them from - because to me, the stuff 'in the cracks' has not only been gone over as much as the formal stuff but cannot be understood without it.

Maybe - but since the formal stuff is already so well understood I think we can safely move on to the cracks. It's particularly interesting for me because I think some of what exists in those cracks has been changing quite a lot in the last few years.

 

[SpineyNorman]

He clearly isn't. But he's willing to post rather than just a couple of one-liners here n there, which makes it easier to have a conversation with him. For myself, I don't think he's defending the SWP but maybe an insight into Leninist organisations. So it's interesting and I hope he doesn't take my questions/observations as some sort of personal attack on him because they're not.

Not at all

 

[Random]

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.

how do they square that with democratic centralist decision making? Basically saying they will not abide by a majority decision.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

it was a joke about who his 'family' is

Oh fuck so it was, sorry.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.

SWP members certainly believe they're only allowed to form factions in the 3 months - and I can't see there being much point in them making you dissolve if you can just set it up again the next day.

 

[discokermit]

Or else why were the F4 expelled for the crime of secret factionalising outside of that period - and why was it justified on the grounds that they had breached the constitution?

the four expelled were the ones arguing against forming a faction. this was taken as evidence that they were organising a secret faction instead.

 

[SpineyNorman]

how do they square that with democratic centralist decision making? Basically saying they will not abide by a majority decision.

No idea - I'm sure they'd manage it though. I believe this happened at the last conference, where 2 of the 4 dissenting CC members were removed from the slate and the other two said they wouldn't serve with the current CC.What happened then was that the CC amended their slate to remove them.

In practice I suspect the same would happen with an alternative slate. They'd announce their unwillingness to serve before the vote was made, in which case people would bear that in mind when voting and the people proposing the alternative slate may well take them off in order to not be presenting an unworkable slate. Would be interesting to see what would happen if they were left on and elected against their will though.

 

[brogdale]

Here is everything said about factions in the SWP constitution. Nothing about when they can be formed just that it needs 30 members

That's interesting.
So no recourse to a vote for the entire membership? Only the non delegated branch reps get to attend the conference vote, then?
How very centralised.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

SWP members aren't even sure they can set up a faction now to discuss this mess. You wouldn't believe the hoops loyal but dissident members are going through to explain themselves today. I do feel for them. even collecting a list of branches who have passed motions critical of the cc is proving a huge issue for one comrade on FB today. he did give the numbers by the way but not my place to share it.

 

[discokermit]

This is worth a read: The Origin of the ‘Slate System’

i see gerry healey get's a mention. both cliff and grant went through "the group".

 

[SpineyNorman]

To a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, and there is a smaller imbalance of power between the CC and the rest of the CC than there is between boss and worker in most industries. And since power in a company is functions in a completely different way I really don't think it's useful.

I can see why it might be attractive - if you can claim the SWP, or Leninist organizations or whatever are the same as capitalist enterprises that has some emotional impact. But it's not a serious point, any more than saying it's the same as the relationship between a dominatrix and her gimp, parent and child or landlord and serf.

As I've said before there are legitimate questions to be asked but I don't think that particular comparison addresses any of them.

 

[discokermit]

Only the non delegated branch reps get to attend the conference vote, then?

no, voted on, in my day.

again, using the slate system, so problematic to say the least.

 

[SpineyNorman]

That's interesting.
So no recourse to a vote for the entire membership? Only the non delegated branch reps get to attend the conference vote, then?
How very centralised.

Well it's not called democratic centralism for nothing you know.

And delegates are elected by their branches so the whole membership gets a say, albeit indirectly.

 

[Athos]

Yes, and there is a smaller imbalance of power between the CC and the rest of the CC than there is between boss and worker in most industries. And since power in a company is functions in a completely different way I really don't think it's useful.

I can see why it might be attractive - if you can claim the SWP, or Leninist organizations or whatever are the same as capitalist enterprises that has some emotional impact. But it's not a serious point, any more than saying it's the same as the relationship between a dominatrix and her gimp, parent and child or landlord and serf.

As I've said before there are legitimate questions to be asked but I don't think that particular comparison addresses any of them.

Yes, there's less imbalance than in the SWP internal relationships than there is in a worker/employer relationship, but more than there ought to be!

And the reason that comparison has more to commend it than some of the other ones you mentioned (which I accept are equally applicable) its capacity to highlight hypocrisy.