SWP expulsions and squabbles

[discokermit]

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.

there's only six more in this weeks paper. not all branches will have meetings in the paper.

there will be some exageration of numbers, but not the amount some people think. otherwise the cc would risk turning their own regional organisers, who know what branches are operational in their areas, against them.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

When I was in the SWP (around 2008 I think) there were plenty of branches that didn't put their meetings in the paper - mine never did.

 

[emanymton]

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.

Yeah the exact nature of SWSS groups and SWSS members has varied over time. At one point they did away with the notion of SWSS members who were not SWP members, which makes sense frankly as it never really happened in practice.

Thinking about it the the best way for the SWP to count the number of branches would be by paper deliveries, as each branch gets a separate bundle of papers.

 

[SLK]

Yeah the exact nature of SWSS groups and SWSS members has varied over time. At one point they did away with the notion of SWSS members who were not SWP members, which makes sense frankly as it never really happened in practice.

Thinking about it the the best way for the SWP to count the number of branches would be by paper deliveries, as each branch gets a separate bundle of papers.

I remember SWSS was an entry to the SWP - be a member of our radical group. Some help us (maybe 15%) build the meetings. About 50% of them joined the SWP. Seemed efficient to me at the time. Used to get 8-10 SWP members a year (China Mieville was one, but not that route).

 

[SLK]

When I was in the SWP (around 2008 I think) there were plenty of branches that didn't put their meetings in the paper - mine never did.

Yes, this too - though I drifted away in about 1999.

 

[emanymton]

I remember SWSS was an entry to the SWP - be a member of our radical group. Some help us (maybe 15%) build the meetings. About 50% of them joined the SWP. Seemed efficient to me at the time. Used to get 8-10 SWP members a year (China Mieville was one, but not that route).

If you drifted away in 1999 then it would have been a couple of yeas after your time, I think. They did away with the Idea of a separate SWSS membership, except as list for the SU. No idea how long it lasted or what the situation is now though.

 

[discokermit]

I'm curious as to why Kostick is wary given his clear sympathy for the opposition of a moderate variety.

conor has posted a piece, http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-message-of-support-to-swp-opposition.html

 

[DotCommunist]

chinas letter in lenins tomb was a bit good, mainly for this

• The removal of this CC and Disputes Committee. By their stunning miscalculations, they have shown themselves to be inadequate to their tasks. They must go.

hard to disagree with that. Is it likely to ever happen though

 

[liquorice1956]

what's interesting is how hard richard seymour and a very few others are working to convince people there's a large opposition - this says to me that there is not and their gossip and innuendo is not really working - know some of the swss members who were not consulted at all about these statements and are pretty pissed off that it's supposed to represent them

 

[discokermit]

hiya prof!

 

[butchersapron]

Telling first post. So what innuendo and gossip have you heard spread around by Seymour and a few others? Or have heard is being spread around? Which SWSS group?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

haha liquorice just guaranteed his or herself a warm welcome on here. welcome to the fight!

be warned though any statement even vaguely soft on the SWP will be met with repeated demands for proof etc whereas any and all innuendo and gossip damaging towards the party will be accepted at face value.

 

[liquorice1956]

for a start the 'FE swss group' which doesn't actually exist - didn't realise it was my first post have been reading for a long time. I'm in one of the districts where there is an expelled comrade and while people were shocked initially there is little support for the 'expellees' particularly in the light of their recent actions which among other things involved naming the women involved to some comrades - an appalling breach of confidentiality and putting both women at risk!

 

[discokermit]

putting both women at risk!

is delta on the rampage again?

 

[SpineyNorman]

So is liquorice the prof or not then?

 

[liquorice1956]

I'm not saying there is no support for the 'opposition' but that it is in the minority and is divided by what it actually wants - there are a hard core who lost the vote massively at conference around 'democratic centralism' and I think maybe either want to change the SWP or start a new party (not sure on this but there are some names floating around from the early 1990's who are not interested in any sort of fightback - not sure of their influence really) and then there are a number of others who are concerned about the disputes committee - they tend not to have been at conference and are often going on quite bizarre gossip.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I don't care who liquorice is as long as theres someone else with something to say against the unholy sp-anarchist alliance on here

 

[liquorice1956]

liquorice would love to be a prof but unfortunately is just ordinary lol!

 

[butchersapron]

for a start the 'FE swss group' which doesn't actually exist - didn't realise it was my first post have been reading for a long time. I'm in one of the districts where there is an expelled comrade and while people were shocked initially there is little support for the 'expellees' particularly in the light of their recent actions which among other things involved naming the women involved to some comrades - an appalling breach of confidentiality and putting both women at risk!

So some members in a SWSS group that doesn't exist were not consulted about the statement the non-existing group put out and as a result are a bit pissed off?

Can't comment on the claims that the expelees have acted in this way, but is that what you are offering as an example of Seymour spreading innuendo and gossip?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't care who liquorice is as long as theres someone else with something to say against the unholy sp-anarchist alliance on here

Yes, move along - nothing to see here. Just an anarcho-SP conspiracy against the SWP

 

[liquorice1956]

some swp FE students are very pissed off - there is no 'group' and they weren't consulted

 

[SpineyNorman]

If this group is the non-existent FE group then surely the only people who need to be consulted are non-existent FE students? Those who do exist and want to influence this need to check their existence privilege if you ask me.

Do the FE students exist or not? I'm confused

 

[liquorice1956]

sorry - there are loads of FE swp students - they're not in a formal group - the statement purports to represent 'fe students' (although a bit's been added now after complaints) - the worry is that a small no of people are trying to appear representative when they're not (this would be why i don't write much as I'm clearly adding to the confusion!)

 

[discokermit]

some swp FE students are very pissed off - there is no 'group' and they weren't consulted

let me get this right, the students who aren't in the group that doesn't exist, are pissed off that the non existant group didn't consult them?

 

[butchersapron]

some swp FE students are very pissed off - there is no 'group' and they weren't consulted

About what? Not being consulted about the non-existent group? Are they pissed off at an inadequate process leading to their own SWSS groups statements? Are they claiming they were drawn up without due process? What consultation are they saying was left out? Any?

 

[SpineyNorman]

sorry - there are loads of FE swp students - they're not in a formal group - the statement purports to represent 'fe students' (although a bit's been added now after complaints) - the worry is that a small no of people are trying to appear representative when they're not (this would be why i don't write much as I'm clearly adding to the confusion!)

Surely if it's the non-existent group it only represents FE students who don't exist - so the ones who do exist quite rightly have no say. They should set up their own group for FE students that do exist. Or something.

 

[discokermit]

then there are a number of others who are concerned about the disputes committee - they tend not to have been at conference and are often going on quite bizarre gossip.

everyone has read the transcript.

 

[SpineyNorman]

there are a number of others who are concerned about the disputes committee - they tend not to have been at conference and are often going on quite bizarre gossip.

Well since delegates were warned not to discuss this at their branches I guess gossip (and the transcript of course) is all they have to go on - you can't blame them and it's not really surprising is it?

 

[butchersapron]

More to the point, the statement does not say that it's from a FE SWSS group, it says it's from SWSS members in FE, then lists the members.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The confusion around who these FE students are and who they represent (cleared up by their subsequent amendment) just serves to show how blogs and other online statements are no substitute for an old fashioned face to face gathering of comrades where real numbers and positions can be judged. The NC will be the first proper opportunity for that at a national level. its impossible to draw any conclusions from the volume of posts on the 'IS' blog as to how much support the opposition really have. The relative online silence of the other wing of the party doesn't mean they're not the majority.