SWP expulsions and squabbles

[two sheds]

Politics aside he's not a bad lad really.

Bit like Joey Barton then.

 

[SpineyNorman]

No, he's just a cunt.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It seems that the "loyalist" element are getting a bit more assertive online over the last day or two. Whether that represents anything more than a few random members getting frustrated I don't know. There have been a few, "why don't you just leave then?" style comments over on the IS site for instance, as well as Snowball's intervention on his blog.

Some of their comments are really quite personally focused (on Seymour).

 

[belboid]

can't really see Seymour being a member much past the weekend, really.

In one of the other posts comments, it seems to say the South Wales aggregate had a massive 15 people at it!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

can't really see Seymour being a member much past the weekend, really.

Likely not. But even so, he's definitely set a new record for "most piss taken out of the CC before expulsion".

In one of the other posts comments, it seems to say the South Wales aggregate had a massive 15 people at it!

Doesn't sound particularly impressive, does it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There's now a statement, allegedly from John Molyneux, on Lenin's Tomb (in the comments to the Is Zinovievism finished article). It's not on his blog or anywhere else I can see as of yet, so caution advised.

It's a full on, no criticism, support for the British CC. Goes after Seymour. It's all about an attack on the Leninist party. Feeding frenzy created by the oppositionalists.

If it is real, then you'd have to guess that it's coordinated with the British CC. And is presumably about warming things up for the counter offensive, by having the loyal critic soften up the wavering elements among the opposition.

 

[imposs1904]

anybody know what diet John's on? I'm impressed and I need to lose a few pounds.

 

[kavenism]

There's now a statement, allegedly from John Molyneux, on Lenin's Tomb (in the comments to the Is Zinovievism finished article). It's not on his blog or anywhere else I can see as of yet, so caution advised.

It's a full on, no criticism, support for the British CC. Goes after Seymour. It's all about an attack on the Leninist party. Feeding frenzy created by the oppositionalists.

If it is real, then you'd have to guess that it's coordinated with the British CC. And is presumably about warming things up for the counter offensive, by having the loyal critic soften up the wavering elements among the opposition.

Yup it's all just a reflection of 'radicalised liberal individualism'. Nothing to see here!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The Molyneux thing was forshadowed on his own blog a little while ago with his little piece on Syriza and anti leninism as by products of a "radicalised version of neo-liberal individualism which developed a very strong hold on youth consciousness over the past couple of decades."

The LT comments do read like his style completely and he's not pulling any punches.

"Finally, I would say that this is a wretched time for many of us – the feeding
frenzy on the net, added to by some who should know better, must make
many comrades feel sickened."

This is coming to a head. Good.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Apparently not intended for publication. It is claimed that it was sent to select members. (The unkind might describe that as "secret factionalism" I suppose).

Interesting to see an example of the kind of behind the scenes lobbying that's going on.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This is coming to a head. Good.

It's language which implies the necessity of a quick split.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

It's language which implies the necessity of a quick split.

Seymour knows it (you don't call party notes Pravda if you think otherwise) the dogs in the street know it.

Molyneux says of a recall conference:
"The demand for a recall conference is not a democratic demand but an
anti-democratic demand designed to undermine the vote of the majority.
Yes, there are circumstances when the demand for a recall conference is
legitimate; for example when there is major new development, such as the
outbreak of an unforeseen war or major strike, on which the party is
divided as to its response. But this not one of them. Nothing has
changed in the outside world except for the public furore CREATED BY
THOSE WHO DISAGREED with conference decisions."

You can't stay long in the same party as people doing that.

"the actual behaviour – as opposed to their formal declarations- of those who have
gone public, in the bourgeois press, on their blogs and on Facebook (and
FB IS public) shows that they either have a very different conception
of the party or no real regard for it. In particular, a question I would
put to Richard Seymour (and to his supporters) is do you believe that
party rules and norms, which you must be aware of, do not apply to you
or is it that you disagree with them all and think that everyone should
be allowed to attack the party publicly in any way they like?"

This will strike a chord with everyone who hasn't already decided to go. It's deep in the dna of a leninist that you don't do this shit. Look at what happeend to Paul Levi and he had much, much more excuse and redeeming qualities.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Seymour knows it (you don't call party notes Pravda if you think otherwise) the dogs in the street know it.

Oh come on, with its relentless diet of good news only stories and exhortations to work, calling Party Notes "Pravda" is so obvious that it barely even counts as witty.

You can't stay long in the same party as people doing that.

Yes, it's the language of the purge. And it is, almost as an aside, a quite extraordinarily tendentious way of describing the origins of the SWP's crisis.

This will strike a chord with everyone who hasn't already decided to go.

It's an attempt to make the hard oppositionists anathema, so as to whip people up for expulsions and cow softer oppositionists. To what degree it will actually have an effect remains to be see. Molyneux, as resident tame critic, is one of the few people on the CC side who will have a bit of additional authority to trade off.

 

[barney_pig]

Can someone post the molyneux bit up in full, for some reason I cannot read comments on seymour's site, tho disquis works fine on other sites?!?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

It's an attempt to make the hard oppositionists anathema, so as to whip people up for expulsions and cow softer oppositionists. To what degree it will actually have an effect remains to be see. Molyneux, as resident tame critic, is one of the few people on the CC side who will have a bit of additional authority to trade off.

Well yes there is that. But it will have an effect. The reason party loyalists aren't commenting online, or have been less than the others, isn't because they have nothing to say, it's cause they agree with JM that you don't have these debates in public, not the procedural ones certainly and even with the political ones there ought to be limits to what you say publically about your own org. That's deeply ingrained. To be honest if I was ever to rejoin (not that they'd have me probably) I'd never post on a forum like this again either, only do it now cause I've nobody else to talk to about it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Seymour knows it (you don't call party notes Pravda if you think otherwise) the dogs in the street know it.

Molyneux says of a recall conference:
"The demand for a recall conference is not a democratic demand but an
anti-democratic demand designed to undermine the vote of the majority.
Yes, there are circumstances when the demand for a recall conference is
legitimate; for example when there is major new development, such as the
outbreak of an unforeseen war or major strike, on which the party is
divided as to its response. But this not one of them. Nothing has
changed in the outside world except for the public furore CREATED BY
THOSE WHO DISAGREED with conference decisions."

You can't stay long in the same party as people doing that.

"the actual behaviour – as opposed to their formal declarations- of those who have
gone public, in the bourgeois press, on their blogs and on Facebook (and
FB IS public) shows that they either have a very different conception
of the party or no real regard for it. In particular, a question I would
put to Richard Seymour (and to his supporters) is do you believe that
party rules and norms, which you must be aware of, do not apply to you
or is it that you disagree with them all and think that everyone should
be allowed to attack the party publicly in any way they like?"

This will strike a chord with everyone who hasn't already decided to go. It's deep in the dna of a leninist that you don't do this shit. Look at what happeend to Paul Levi and he had much, much more excuse and redeeming qualities.

'it's deep in the dna of a leninist' = I have no argument

 

[Nigel Irritable]

ISO have a statement out:

http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/30/the-crisis-in-the-swp

 

[SLK]

ISO have a statement out:

http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/30/the-crisis-in-the-swp

That rambles an repeats itself a lot! I can't disagree with it though.

 

[cesare]

I thought it was a problem with the way the page was loading when I kept reading the same thing I completely disagree (unsurprisingly) with what they have to say about bypassing bourgeois courts and limiting sanctions for sexual abuse to expulsion.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

That rambles an repeats itself a lot! I can't disagree with it though.

Rambles cause they're trying to be even handed and not throw the baby out with the bath water. But they are making a huge mistake giving Seymour such a personal ego rub in it. Got to laugh at the we don't like to interfere but nonsense. but they are also clearly worried at some of the over the top stuff their own members have been saying on fb. Once it's there it doesn't go away indeed.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Rambles cause they're trying to be even handed and not throw the baby out with the bath water. But they are making a huge mistake giving Seymour such a personal ego rub in it. Got to laugh at the we don't like to interfere but nonsense. but they are also clearly worried at some of the over the top stuff their own members have been saying on fb. Once it's there it doesn't go away indeed.

It also repeats itself because they've added an introduction to an earlier document which already had one.

And yes, because they have a few different agendas (1) supporting the SWP oppositionists (2) trying to encourage the rethinking of Cliffism to stay within the same sort of bounds they have and (3) keeping a lid on their own rasher elements.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.

You mean the Rev Socialists who called for support for Mursi not so long ago? The same Mursi that has just initiated a curfew?

 

[SLK]

Rambles cause they're trying to be even handed and not throw the baby out with the bath water. But they are making a huge mistake giving Seymour such a personal ego rub in it. Got to laugh at the we don't like to interfere but nonsense. but they are also clearly worried at some of the over the top stuff their own members have been saying on fb. Once it's there it doesn't go away indeed.

I know you dislike him. I don't really have an opinion. If his ego is rubbed, so be it, I don't really care. I can't see him being a leader of a significant group for a long time.

 

[SpackleFrog]

We've long since ditched that style of appeal over here. They work, but they are a bit too in your face.

What were you doing at a Militant summer camp, by the way?

Could you elaborate a bit Nigel? Message me if you prefer, interested in your alternative appeal style

 

[SpackleFrog]

Testing my arguments in favour of state cap and a workers' republic against their best. Well, Joe Higgins wasn't there so it was mostly toe to toe with Peter Hadden. I also came across a really interesting hang up one of their 'historians' had. I don't know if you've ever encountered it. Someone in a talk asked why, if a planned economy is more progressive than an anarchic one (apologies to our anarchist friends, you know what I mean), did the ancient Chinese empire not advance more quickly than western feudalism? They got themselves tied up in knots over that.

The ancient Chinese empire did advance far more quickly than Western feudalism, though I'm not sure how it's strictly relevant as neither were planned economies.

 

[The39thStep]

I thought it was a problem with the way the page was loading when I kept reading the same thing I completely disagree (unsurprisingly) with what they have to say about bypassing bourgeois courts and limiting sanctions for sexual abuse to expulsion.

So our conclusion re the allegations are that these are best dealt with by bourgeois courts?

 

[two sheds]

With SWPers coming out, and the most active amongst them therefore possibly losing many of their friends, perhaps there should be a support group.

 

[cesare]

So our conclusion re the allegations are that these are best dealt with by bourgeois courts?

We don't know enough about these specific allegations to conclude anything about this particular incident/s. What *I* would generally conclude though is that investigating allegations of sexual abuse shouldn't automatically bypass the bourgeois court system and that sanctions for sexual abuse shouldn't be limited to party expulsion.

 

[The39thStep]

We don't know enough about these specific allegations to conclude anything about this particular incident/s. What *I* would generally conclude though is that investigating allegations of sexual abuse shouldn't automatically bypass the bourgeois court system and that sanctions for sexual abuse shouldn't be limited to party expulsion.

What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
I am generally undecided about this btw .

 

[Fozzie Bear]

What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
I am generally undecided about this btw .

I think if the victim is explicit about not wanting to go through the courts/police then that has to be accepted. (The alternative is that members do not feel confident in bringing complaints because their wishes might be over-ridden and the matter handed over to the cops against their will?)

But there also has to be a discussion with them about the limits of the internal complaints procedure, and its sanctions.

Unless there is a case to be made that in some situations the allegation is so horrendous that it has to go to the police?