SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Nigel Irritable]

I see that Seymour's latest gives us the state of play:

1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
Motions.
2) 7 other branches have passed critical motions.
3) Apparently there are 93 official branches. Incidentally this means that the SWP officially claim to have an average of about 85 members per branch!
4) SWSS is overwhelmingly oppositional, but if you read the various statements, there still seems to be harder and softer wings. Oxford is the only large SWSS group now without an oppositional statement out.

The opposition are making a decent fist of this so far. The CC counteroffensive, now that they've resestablished control over the apparatus behind the scenes, looks likely to swing into higher gear around the forthcoming NC.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I see that Seymour's latest gives us the state of play:

1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
Motions.
2) 7 other branches have passed critical motions.
3) Apparently there are 93 official branches. Incidentally this means that the SWP officially claim to have an average of about 85 members per branch!
4) SWSS is overwhelmingly oppositional, but if you read the various statements, there still seems to be harder and softer wings. Oxford is the only large SWSS group now without an oppositional statement out.

The opposition are making a decent fist of this so far. The CC counteroffensive, now that they've resestablished control over the apparatus behind the scenes, looks likely to swing into higher gear around the forthcoming NC.

Has either of the two Sheffield SWSS's released one yet?

 

[belboid]

1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
Motions.

bolshiebhoy said there were eight confrence motions passed before the latest set of branch meetings - so this would imply they haven't received any news ones

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I see that Seymour's latest gives us the state of play:

1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
Motions.
2) 7 other branches have passed critical motions.
3) Apparently there are 93 official branches. Incidentally this means that the SWP officially claim to have an average of about 85 members per branch!
4) SWSS is overwhelmingly oppositional, but if you read the various statements, there still seems to be harder and softer wings. Oxford is the only large SWSS group now without an oppositional statement out.

The opposition are making a decent fist of this so far. The CC counteroffensive, now that they've resestablished control over the apparatus behind the scenes, looks likely to swing into higher gear around the forthcoming NC.

I think someone forgot to insert the decimal point in the claim of 85 members per branch.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Right now I can't see any movement that's ready to replace Leninism as an organised left wing movement in Europe. Part of the reason is that Leninist groups, and other Social Democratic parties have been very good at squashing their rivals to the left. But now that the Trotskyist Leninists are falling apart, and the Communist Parties have stopped pretending to be anticapitalist, there's no other movement that's near to being coherent enough to grow in their place.

It has nothing to do with "squashing rivals to the left" and everything to do with the "rivals to the left" being essentially irrelevant incompetents married to essentially ineffectual and self-defeating ideas and strategies. If the Trotskyist parties were to seriously decline across Europe (and there really isn't much evidence to suggest this is happening), it will not lead to a growth in serious anarchist organisation, or Left Communism, or Councilism, or anything remotely similar. It will simply mean the end of class struggle Marxist organisation on a scale large enough to be noticeable.

We would not be talking about these parties being superceded by something better, but about a retreat. Just as the fall of the CPs did not herald the breakthroughs that some Trotskyists imagined were on the cards.

My instinct is that the reason the Trotskyist parties have done so well in the UK, compared to other groups, is that they come from a sectarian and semi-militarised Leninist tradition, and so they're able to hold themselves together despite the hostility of the mainstream labour movement

There's an element of truth to this, but you are coming at it from the wrong angle.

There are a couple of exceptional European states where some broader factor, historical or political, creates conditions where Anarchists can have a little prominence on the far left. So for instance, the deep historical roots of the CNT allow its degenerate grandchildren to continue to play in its ruins. Or the general strength of the left in Greece means that, while they are a minor factor compared to the KKE and its spin offs, there are by the standards of the rest of the world a lot of Anarchists around (albeit they are mostly complete head cases). But those countries are extremely unusual. The norm, overwhelmingly, is for organised class struggle Anarchists to be irrelevant even by the low, low standards of the far left, and for other "ultra left" traditions to be irrelevant even by the low, low, low standards of class struggle Anarchists. Britain is rather run of the mill in that regard.

Currents "to the left" of Trotskyism have for decades in almost every country existed primarily in the form of a moralist's critique of larger left organisations. That's not a way of saying "don't listen to what they say". Sometimes their criticisms can be insightful and worth hearing. But they have absolutely no strategic vision and the idea of turning to any of them for positive ideas about a path towards changing the world is nuts.

What I cannot understand, though, is anarchist and trotskyist groups' failure to grow during times of genuine mass mobilisation, like during the anti-war protests, when the extreme radicals (and the Muslim Brotherhood!) were some of the only groups articulating what the majority of the UK felt.

The core issue with the anti-war movement was that the radicalisation it involved was a mile wide and an inch deep, and by and large the left didn't really understand that. And even the bits which did understand that still tended to lapse into strategies and approaches which assumed a deeper radicalisation. Plus with the general retreat of a socialist outlook over the last period, what deeper radicalisation there was didn't automatically lead to people getting involved in socialist activism.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

bolshiebhoy said there were eight confrence motions passed before the latest set of branch meetings - so this would imply they haven't received any news ones

It certainly doesn't look like they will have the 19 by Feb 1st, which would explain why they make such a point of rejecting that "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" deadline. Still though, yesterday's display of complete dominance in SWSS will help them in terms of momentum.

 

[discokermit]

Has either of the two Sheffield SWSS's released one yet?

don't think so.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I thought I'd add this here. Nick Wrack's Independent Socialist Network comments on the left's actions at the save Lewisham A&E demo today

http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=1842

by Nick Wrack
I went on the ‘Save Lewisham A&E’ demo today. There was a fantastic turnout of around 20 – 25,000. The area was bedecked with campaign posters. It seemed as though every passing car honked its horn in solidarity. It was a really significant development in the anti-cuts movement to get such a response for a local demo.
There should have been a serious attempt by TUSC to raise its profile at today’s event, showing solidarity and offering help.
Any anti-cuts electoral challenge would have to engage with such an event. Everyone of the 20,000 + people on the demo should have seen TUSC activists and gone home with TUSC literature. TUSC should have been seen as having something to say about the NHS and this threatened closure.
However, the two big socialist organisations in TUSC - the SWP & the SP – both prioritised their own party building activities, selling papers and running their own stalls. That is their prerogative and nothing I say is going to change what they do. I am told that the some SP members brought the TUSC banner but I didn’t see it.
TUSC has no organisational centre or apparatus, no money, no relevant leaflets and consequently had no impact on the march at all. The new National Health Action Party’s banner, on the other hand, was prominent.
If TUSC is to make any impact at all in the next two years it has to completely change its approach. It needs to think and act like a national party and intervene in protests like today’s as though it had something serious to say.
Independent socialists, trade unionists and other activists who want a new party should seriously discuss how we can work together to increase our weight and influence. Join the Independent Socialist Network.

What's this Indepedent Socialist Network anyway?. It was called the TUSC Independent Socialist Network last time I checked, I notice that's been dropped.

 

[chilango]

It has nothing to do with "squashing rivals to the left" and everything to do with the "rivals to the left" being essentially irrelevant incompetents married to essentially ineffectual and self-defeating ideas and strategies. If the Trotskyist parties were to seriously decline across Europe (and there really isn't much evidence to suggest this is happening), it will not lead to a growth in serious anarchist organisation, or Left Communism, or Councilism, or anything remotely similar. It will simply mean the end of class struggle Marxist organisation on a scale large enough to be noticeable.

We would not be talking about these parties being superceded by something better, but about a retreat. Just as the fall of the CPs did not herald the breakthroughs that some Trotskyists imagined were on the cards.



There's an element of truth to this, but you are coming at it from the wrong angle.

There are a couple of exceptional European states where some broader factor, historical or political, creates conditions where Anarchists can have a little prominence on the far left. So for instance, the deep historical roots of the CNT allow its degenerate grandchildren to continue to play in its ruins. Or the general strength of the left in Greece means that, while they are a minor factor compared to the KKE and its spin offs, there are by the standards of the rest of the world a lot of Anarchists around (albeit they are mostly complete head cases). But those countries are extremely unusual. The norm, overwhelmingly, is for organised class struggle Anarchists to be irrelevant even by the low, low standards of the far left, and for other "ultra left" traditions to be irrelevant even by the low, low, low standards of class struggle Anarchists. Britain is rather run of the mill in that regard.

Currents "to the left" of Trotskyism have for decades in almost every country existed primarily in the form of a moralist's critique of larger left organisations. That's not a way of saying "don't listen to what they say". Sometimes their criticisms can be insightful and worth hearing. But they have absolutely no strategic vision and the idea of turning to any of them for positive ideas about a path towards changing the world is nuts.



The core issue with the anti-war movement was that the radicalisation it involved was a mile wide and an inch deep, and by and large the left didn't really understand that. And even the bits which did understand that still tended to lapse into strategies and approaches which assumed a deeper radicalisation. Plus with the general retreat of a socialist outlook over the last period, what deeper radicalisation there was didn't automatically lead to people getting involved in socialist activism.

I'd disagree with much of this.

I've lived in France, Portugal and Italy and the only one of those with a notable Trot presence (ime) was France.

In Portugal leftovers from th parties involved in the revolution were the most prominent -including Maoists, Guevarist-ish type groups etc. Though he Trots did gain influence via the Left Bloc.

In Italy, I never, ever saw Trots. Anarchos (both IWA tradition and insurrectionist types) and Autonomists dominated the scene outside of the the various CPI splinters.

Then you've got Greece and Dpain that you mention. Germany, Netherlands etc. with he their big Autonome squatter scenes.

None of this is to say that these tendencies are "better" or anything than he Trots but that in much/most of Europe (and further afield) other traditions take up much or all of the visibility that the Trots had in the UK.

If I was to hazard a guess about why? Perhaps occupation and resistance or fascist dictatorships lead to a somewhat different attitude towards the style of leftie politics than a relatively stable parliamentary democracy with a two party system entrenched.

But that's just thinking out loud.

I do agree however that the end of the Trot tradition in the UK would not lead to the growth of other left currents. Far from it. Many act in as parasitical way to the Trots as the Trots themselves have to Labour (and in he old days the CP).

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'd disagree with much of this.

I've lived in France, Portugal and Italy and the only one of those with a notable Trot presence (ime) was France.

In all three of those countries, the far left is and has been dominated by parties of a self-described "Leninist" bent and their offspring. In France, it's Trotskyists, in Portugal it's Maoists (and to a lesser extent Trotskyists), in Italy, well it's a bit more complicated. The role of Maoists and other "Anti-Revisionists" as "substitute Trotskyists" in a few countries (Norway, Belgium, etc) is an interesting side issue, as is the gradual and uneven tendency for Trotskyism to replace Maoism, but neither is really relevant to the main point I was making. Being marginalised by Maoism isn't any better than being marginal compared to Trotskyism.

The whole "ultra left" is a total disaster area when it comes to strategic sense. It's a place to go to for more or less tendentious critiques of "Leninism", not a place to find any better ideas about, ahem, what is to be done. Not in the UK and not anywhere else.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I thought I'd add this here. Nick Wrack's Independent Socialist Network comments on the left's actions at the save Lewisham A&E demo today

http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=1842



What's this Indepedent Socialist Network anyway?. It was called the TUSC Independent Socialist Network last time I checked, I notice that's been dropped.

They used to be in TUSC and as far as I know still are - from what I can gather it's basically just him that's really active in it. Seemed like an OK bloke when I spoke to him at a national TUSC thing I got roped into going to.

I also completely agree with him, in that if we're going to use TUSC as an electoral platform then we need to be doing everyday campaigning as TUSC too, otherwise we'll get nowhere.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Yeah I met him once or twice before, first time at the Convention of the Left in Manchester about 2007-ish. I think he was in Respect (coz he got me to write an article for the Respect paper for him) and at that occasion I think there was some Campaign for a New Workers Party people he was with. He seemed like a nice guy.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There's been a whole host of minorly prominent people coming out of leninist or trot groups recently and arguing that what is needed is a regroupment around a broad pluralist party that allows free discussion, fractions and all that - yet most of them, as far as i can see anyway, have got no further in their re-appraisal than reading Lars Lih's Rediscovering Lenin then arguing that the bolsheviks pre-1917 are the best example of this wonderful new creature that's needed today, in fact the examplar.

For a lot of them it's about "rediscovering" Lenin as prophet of SYRIZA and recasting the Bolsheviks as precursors to it.

 

[chilango]

In all three of those countries, the far left is and has been dominated by parties of a self-described "Leninist" bent and their offspring. In France, it's Trotskyists, in Portugal it's Maoists (and to a lesser extent Trotskyists), in Italy, well it's a bit more complicated. The role of Maoists and other "Anti-Revisionists" as "substitute Trotskyists" in a few countries (Norway, Belgium, etc) is an interesting side issue, as is the gradual and uneven tendency for Trotskyism to replace Maoism, but neither is really relevant to the main point I was making. Being marginalised by Maoism isn't any better than being marginal compared to Trotskyism.

The whole "ultra left" is a total disaster area when it comes to strategic sense. It's a place to go to for more or less tendentious critiques of "Leninism", not a place to find any better ideas about, ahem, what is to be done. Not in the UK and not anywhere else.

Yeah.

Like I said, I'm not aiming to make a political point here, more an observation on (as you say) an interesting side issue.

I do find it interesting that the UK left has a far, far greater dominance by the Trots than pretty much anywhere else. An that none of the competitors (Maoists, Guevarists, Anarchists, Autonomist, Ultra-Lefts, CP inheritors etc etc.) have anything like the influence (on the far-left scene, we're not talking about the class here!) that they do elsewhere.

Whereas in the rest of Europe the Trots are, at best, one of several competing traditions, at worst largely absent.

The strategic sense, or otherwise, of the ultra-lefts is a different argument entirely. I think we're getting our wires crossed here..

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I do find it interesting that the UK left has a far, far greater dominance by the Trots than pretty much anywhere else. An that none of the competitors (Maoists, Guevarists, Anarchists, Autonomist, Ultra-Lefts, CP inheritors etc etc.) have anything like the influence (on the far-left scene, we're not talking about the class here!) that they do elsewhere.

It's not really that diverse. Pretty much everywhere, the space to the left of the CP or Social Democracy is dominated by "Leninist" party-building trends, almost always either Trotskyist or Maoist/Anti-Rev. Whether it's the Trotskyists or the Maoists in any given country is a bit random, and depends largely on when exactly their far left happens to have made its first breakthrough, with a tendency for Trotskyism to overtake Maoism over time.

Every other brand of organisation is irrelevant everywhere even by the low standards of the far left, with a couple of local exceptions.

 

[chilango]

It's not really that diverse. Pretty much everywhere, the space to the left of the CP or Social Democracy is dominated by "Leninist" party-building trends, almost always either Trotskyist or Maoist/Anti-Rev. Whether it's the Trotskyists or the Maoists in any given country is a bit random, and depends largely on when exactly their far left happens to have made its first breakthrough, with a tendency for Trotskyism to overtake Maoism over time.

Every other brand of organisation is irrelevant everywhere even by the low standards of the far left, with a couple of local exceptions.

Nah.

That doesn't chime with my experiences.

But never mind, it's a side issue, a curiosity, nothing more.

 

[J Ed]

In all three of those countries, the far left is and has been dominated by parties of a self-described "Leninist" bent and their offspring. In France, it's Trotskyists, in Portugal it's Maoists (and to a lesser extent Trotskyists), in Italy, well it's a bit more complicated. The role of Maoists and other "Anti-Revisionists" as "substitute Trotskyists" in a few countries (Norway, Belgium, etc) is an interesting side issue, as is the gradual and uneven tendency for Trotskyism to replace Maoism, but neither is really relevant to the main point I was making. Being marginalised by Maoism isn't any better than being marginal compared to Trotskyism.

The whole "ultra left" is a total disaster area when it comes to strategic sense. It's a place to go to for more or less tendentious critiques of "Leninism", not a place to find any better ideas about, ahem, what is to be done. Not in the UK and not anywhere else.

In my experience of Coimbra, Maoists are very much a tiny and much ridiculed minority, Barroso is sort of like a SpikedOnline figure! Electorally they do a lot worse than the Left Bloc and the PCP.

 

[Before Theory]

3) Apparently there are 93 official branches.
NC.

Pardon my cynicism but I was in the SWP until the 2011 conference, had been there for nearly 11 years, and there was no way they had 93 branches !!! That's a bureaucratic manoeuvre to raise the bar and prevent a recall conference.

There were at the most 40 branches even on paper with only about 25 of them in any way active, the "leaders" were always lamenting the lack of meetings and paper sales.

 

[Bakunin]

Pardon my cynicism but I was in the SWP until the 2011 conference, had been there for nearly 11 years, and there was no way they had 93 branches !!! That's a bureaucratic manoeuvre to raise the bar and prevent a recall conference.

Of course, it raises the numbers required to force a recall conference making it easier for the leadership to then say that the required percentage wasn't reached, ergo, no need for a conference.

There were at the most 40 branches even on paper with only about 25 of them in any way active, the "leaders" were always lamenting the lack of meetings and paper sales.

Except in the pages of 'Party Notes' where everything was the most brilliant and amazing opportunity ever and attended by the world's supply of young enthusiasts who all joined up immediately if they hadn't already?

 

[discokermit]

Pardon my cynicism but I was in the SWP until the 2011 conference, had been there for nearly 11 years, and there was no way they had 93 branches !!! That's a bureaucratic manoeuvre to raise the bar and prevent a recall conference.

There were at the most 40 branches even on paper with only about 25 of them in any way active, the "leaders" were always lamenting the lack of meetings and paper sales.

there's nearly eighty branch meetings listed in socialist worker.

 

[Before Theory]

there's nearly eighty branch meetings listed in socialist worker.

Of course there is this week - but have a look at this time last year if it's still cached somewhere - and I've got old Socialist Workers lying in my loft from two/three years ago, they show 20 listings for branch meetings.

Again pardon my cynicism but I smell a big fat rat.

 

[Bakunin]

Of course there is this week - but have a look at this time last year if it's still cached somewhere - and I've got old Socialist Workers lying in my loft from two/three years ago, they show 20 listings for branch meetings.

Again pardon my cynicism but I smell a big fat rat.

What you're thinking, if I may, is that the number of branches that have either been suddenly built or suddenly re-activated after being moribund for months or even years might just resemble the number voting against the motion for a recall conference?

 

[discokermit]

two/three years ago, they show 20 listings for branch meetings.

hasn't there been a move towards more branch meetings since then though?

 

[emanymton]

hasn't there been a move towards more branch meetings since then though?

The listings in the paper are not very good guide as the whole thing is a bit hit an miss and a lot of branches don't get listed and even more don't mange to have a meeting every week (and I think a year or so ago they were every two weeks anyway) but they still exist as a branch. So i think they have more than 40.

But the real question is do SWSS groups count as branches, they would have when I was a member but I don't know the official position now. If not it will go some way towards explaining this ridiculous figure of 80 odd members per branch, when i was a member most brach lists had 20-40 members listed. If they do count as separate branches then they could have around 100 branches, but it would also mean that almost 20% of branches had called for a recall conference.

 

[Before Theory]

What you're thinking, if I may, is that the number of branches that have either been suddenly built or suddenly re-activated after being moribund for months or even years might just resemble the number voting against the motion for a recall conference?

Very well put Bakunin, that's exactly what I meant to say.

 

[discokermit]

Of course there is this week - but have a look at this time last year if it's still cached somewhere

i just looked for the beginning of december last year, before all this blew up, and there was seventy two branch meetings listed.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Paper branches to prevent people reaching the required number to get a recall conference, full of paper members who onced signed an SWP mailing list on a freshers fair stall 5 years ago. What a farce.

 

[Before Theory]

i just looked for the beginning of december last year, before all this blew up, and there was seventy two branch meetings listed.

Thanks discokermit, maybe they started building branches after I left - I concede that I haven't stayed in contact - but in the 2010 period there were on average 40/50 branches listed but they would often literally be three men and a dog. I used to occasionally speak at other branches and most of them were pretty dire, the only decent ones were the SWSS groups.

 

[Bakunin]

i just looked for the beginning of december last year, before all this blew up, and there was seventy two branch meetings listed.

And now according to Seymour and less than a month into the new year, silly season notwithstanding, they've got 93.

21 new or re-activated branches in less than two months.

During the end-of-year silly season.

Way back when, I remember reports of the SWP packing meetings of other orgs so they could effectively rig important votes in their favour. Suddenly and without warning groups would have lots of new members who all secured voting rights and all voted pro-SWP as a bloc.

I'm having serious doubts whether or not the leadership isn't doing this within the party itself. Where did all these new're-activated branches come from? How many members do they have? Have these branches all been properly set up?

Just a few little questions I'd quite like answered.

 

[SLK]

The listings in the paper are not very good guide as the whole thing is a bit hit an miss and a lot of branches don't get listed and even more don't mange to have a meeting every week (and I think a year or so ago they were every two weeks anyway) but they still exist as a branch. So i think they have more than 40.

But the real question is do SWSS groups count as branches, they would have when I was a member but I don't know the official position now. If not it will go some way towards explaining this ridiculous figure of 80 odd members per branch, when i was a member most brach lists had 20-40 members listed. If they do count as separate branches then they could have around 100 branches, but it would also mean that almost 20% of branches had called for a recall conference.

The 80 odd members per branch is the old exaggerate the numbers and anyone who signed up in the last two years is a member (I remember visiting these people trying to get them to 'up' their subs -usually not interested but sometimes I'd just be reminding them to cancel their direct debit).

SWSS groups were not branches when I was a member. We were all in the same branch closest to our university (because there was a decided orientation on universities then - and that is actually different to other periods when I was a member). SWSS membership wasn't SWP membership either.

I would very much doubt that any meeting advertised in the paper wasn't a real branch, even if it has 10 members and 3 are active - in my experience the 3 of us would meet anyway. It's just not the way they work. If there was no public record, they'd claim 200 branches.