Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Is this because you've used your psychic powers to detect his real thoughts? Or did he actually say it?

I would guess it is passages like this one they are referring to, I can see why they would say that but think it is over top. Also this person was on the SWP CC until a few moths ago, have his views suddenly changed or did he think this back then? In which case why was he on the CC, or was he hiding his real views for some unknown reason?


Instead, something unusual took place. The forms of working class organisation and resistance that shaped our own history have not been the most powerful forms of resistance in Britain in the recent past. Strike days stuck at their record lows. Yet mass movements appeared with the growth of the anti-capitalist movement, and then – more spectacularly – with the anti-war upsurge from late 2001. New layers of activists, mostly young, largely themselves part of the new working class, often in precarious employment, came forward. They helped shape and lead the anti-war movement, driving some of the biggest demonstrations in British history – alongside, it should be remembered, walkouts from schools, limited workplace action, occupations of colleges, blockades of roads and other forms of direct action.
 
Is this because you've used your psychic powers to detect his real thoughts? Or did he actually say it?

I hold no brief for Counterfire, but it's a bit cheeky and dishonest to just assign views to them that they haven't argued.

To be fair some of them have been saying that they need to go back to the respect way of working (meaning going beyond class and looking at identity groups etc) but I can't remember where I read it - the CC (and bb) are no doubt exaggerating this element but unfortunately it most certainly does exist - it's not a complete fabrication.
 
I would guess it is passages like this one they are referring to, I can see why they would say that but think it is over top.

That passage doesn't say what the SWP seem to be implying it does. In fact, bar some exaggeration of the strength of the "anti-capitalist" movement and also of the anti-war movement, it really isn't something that should be particularly controversial. I mean, he's right, we have seen various protest movements without seeing a big move towards industrial action.

Now it may be that he's drawing conclusions from that fact that don't necessary flow from it, and which may be more controversial, but really the SWP leadership should be engaging with his argument properly rather than caricaturing it and then using that caricature to imply that the opposition represent an existential threat to the SWP's version of Marxism.

emanymton said:
Also this person was on the SWP CC until a few moths ago, have his views suddenly changed or did he think this back then? In which case why was he on the CC, or was he hiding his real views for some unknown reason?

Developing heterodox views may explain why he was removed from the CC. He has apparently been arguing along those lines for at least a while though, judging by Seymour's response to his letter.
 
I think the SP will have to suspend him immediately. I do wonder if the bravery of what the women in the SWP have done has given Hedley's ex the confidence to come forward. It is tragic for her, and another blow for the left, and in this case the RMT.

His general behaviour on facebook is appalling. I agree with what SN has said about groups not snooping on people, but he is so openly vile and sexist on facebook I'm surprised no-one has ever noticed, including the RMT.
 
To be fair some of them have been saying that they need to go back to the respect way of working (meaning going beyond class and looking at identity groups etc) but I can't remember where I read it - the CC (and bb) are no doubt exaggerating this element but unfortunately it most certainly does exist - it's not a complete fabrication.
Actually as I read over his statement again I am beginning to think BB and the CC might have more of a point than I thought a first.
 
Yeah what emanymton and SpineyNorman said.

Plus Counterfire piece on the swp said this "Underlying this conception, although not adequately formulated in Party debates at the end of the last decade, was a recognition that both the British working class had changed, and that our own forms of organisation needed to adapt with and to it. Trade unions were essential as the bedrock working class institution, but could not be the only game in town for socialists. Their recent strength has been in their contribution to movements of political protest, which include one day strikes, rather than in prolonged industrial action. None of this implies for an instant a retreat from the principle that the working class is the key agent of change in capitalist society. " Not for an instant!
 
The bit about making sure that motions need to be made available in good time for all comrades, and then all recall motions need to be in before feb. 1st seem at odds with normal SWP practice. Mind you the passing of any resolution at a SWP meeting would be counter to normal SWP practice.
 
I think the SP will have to suspend him immediately. I do wonder if the bravery of what the women in the SWP have done has given Hedley's ex the confidence to come forward. It is tragic for her, and another blow for the left, and in this case the RMT.

Sadly I'm not even that surprised as my friend knows another ex of his, and his general behaviour on facebook is appalling. I agree with what SN has said about groups not snooping on people, but he is so openly vile and sexist on facebook I'm surprised no-one has ever noticed, including the RMT.

every cloud etc etc
 
Actually as I read over his statement again I am beginning to think BB and the CC might have more of a point than I thought a first.

Thing is, I don't think this opposition is especially coherent - it's people who oppose the CC for various reasons. Some of them because they want to go back to the 'united front of a special kind' approach, but others will be doing it for other reasons. It's convenient for the CC and the more hackish elements because they can use it to smear those with other criticisms and it means they can smear them without relying on outright lies.
 
Thing is, I don't think this opposition is especially coherent - it's people who oppose the CC for various reasons. Some of them because they want to go back to the 'united front of a special kind' approach, but others will be doing it for other reasons. It's convenient for the CC and the more hackish elements because they can use it to smear those with other criticisms and it means they can smear them without relying on outright lies.

Well yes, you can see straight away that the CC have seized on the more "heterodox" ideas raised by anyone who is oppositional and want to have the debate on those grounds rather than on the core issues at stake.

This "political" ((c) bolshiebhoy) response doesn't actually engage with any of the main opposition arguments at all, which strikes me as a bit strange.
 
Yeah what emanymton and SpineyNorman said.

Plus Counterfire piece on the swp said this "Underlying this conception, although not adequately formulated in Party debates at the end of the last decade, was a recognition that both the British working class had changed, and that our own forms of organisation needed to adapt with and to it. Trade unions were essential as the bedrock working class institution, but could not be the only game in town for socialists. Their recent strength has been in their contribution to movements of political protest, which include one day strikes, rather than in prolonged industrial action. None of this implies for an instant a retreat from the principle that the working class is the key agent of change in capitalist society. " Not for an instant!
Yeah this was the main bit that made me reconsider. I still think this is 'very SWP' though. He identity's the problem as a lack of significant working class militancy, but instead of formulating a realistic perspective because of this, he jumps to the 'get rich quick scheme' of a turn to the movements.
 
Yeah this was the main bit that made me reconsider. I still think this is 'very SWP' though. He identity's the problem as a lack of significant working class militancy, but instead of formulating a realistic perspective because of this, he jumps to the 'get rich quick scheme' of a turn to the movements.

I don't really agree with his argument, or with what you correctly identify as a "very SWP" get rich quick conclusion, but the central point he's basing his argument on - that the unions have done very little in recent times and that an overwhelming orientation towards union work promises little in the way of quick results - is correct and shouldn't really be all that controversial. And I say that as a member of the Socialist Party which (in Britain and the North of Ireland more than in the South) does have a very strong orientation towards long term work in the unions and workplaces.
 
From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.
 
From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.

Which is exactly their goal now - force out the Seymourites, with the NC's backing and that of the Inbetweeners half of whom were probably really pro-CCers flying under false colours anyway.

ETA: did any Seymourites get onto the NC?
 
From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.

Yeap. And then they can carry on being a total irrelevance and trying to build total rubbish like Unite the Resistance. Collapse, don't collapse, actually makes sod all difference.
 
From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.

I think that's much too optimistic.

It's been clear from the start that the CC's approach has been to try and separate the "hard" and "soft" critics and then get rid of the "hard" while keeping the more vacillating elements on board. The problem is that for all that they will want to concentrate on discussing the terrible dangers posed by the willingness of some of the harder critics to call some established SWP verities into question, they will still have to have the actual debate with the "middle ground" opposition. They are having to concede a willingness to do that, after first trying to shut things down. But they can't concede anything significant to them beyond that.

Which means that the best case scenario is a first purge of or split with the harder oppositionists. Which will in and of itself annoy some of the middle ground, and will also result in more opprobrium from people the SWP interact with and the media. Which will lead to more demoralisation. And which still leaves them with a built in opposition still there, something they've never been able to cope with, ever. Like a larger scale version of them getting Rees and German out the door but being stuck with Bambery.
 
Which is exactly their goal now - force out the Seymourites, with the NC's backing and that of the Inbetweeners half of whom were probably really pro-CCers flying under false colours anyway.

ETA: did any Seymourites get onto the NC?

I think the middle faction was probably at least in part a set up. I know some of the people in it, like Rob Owen, who is a dyed in the wool, totally unthinking hack.

That's what makes me laugh about the view that the pro-cc lot know the real tradition of the IS, which has so many zig zags it's hard to know exactly what that is. Most of them like him wouldn't know the working class if it hit them in the face, and are politically clueless puppets.
 
would it be concievable they give smith the elbow, as a sop to the moderates? or are they too entrenched to do that? what do people think?
 
He's already off the CC so it just seems to be UAF now, but presumably the SWP is still paying him a salary either directly or through UAF? There is a UAF conference in early MArch so that could be interesting.
 
you could still be a full-timer (ie doing regional organising or being in one of the front groups lol) and not be on the CC though.
 
How odd then that that Prof managed to entirely miss this in his long and highly complimentary review of ND's new book in the latest ISJ. Only a cynic would suggest that this was because it was written before he knew Davidson had crossed over to the dark side.
 
When did Davidson join the centrist faction? Sometime in December, was it? So yes, probably after Callinicos' review. Although, to be fair to the Prof, Davidson was a well known long term loyal oppositionist before that.
 
Back
Top Bottom