ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
At least there's Photoshop nowadays, so some poor bastard doesn't have to airbrush individual photos by candlelight anymore.
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
At least there's Photoshop nowadays, so some poor bastard doesn't have to airbrush individual photos by candlelight anymore.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The BBC held a full enquiry and found that Kettley had been misunderstood, and that anyway no-one at the Beeb knew about his anti-establishment pro-Mansonist tendencies, even when he was known to take underage pro-Mansonist tendencies into his dressing room with him.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
SU Newman has just posted up a story about similar allegations that are dogging the German sister organisation of the SWP 
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
From over a decade ago though.SU Newman has just posted up a story about similar allegations that are dogging the German sister organisation of the SWP
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
http://socialistunity.com/swp-dehumanisation-leads-to-abuse/#.UQ_ZUHwgGK0
Anna Chen expands on the fuck circuit
Anna Chen expands on the fuck circuit
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Anna Chen is utterly full of shit. Still sulking cos she wasn't given an official SWP PR person job when they realised she was basically just a wet liberal.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
And it took them seven plus years to realise that? All hail the vanguard. They know better than us.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
So she could reasonably have expected promotion then...
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
This was pretty good: "I looked from pig to man and then man to pig and then back again and wondered who’d look better in a bacon sandwich." Kind of a Communist Joan Rivers vibe.
And I think belboid is confusing sulking with anger.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
angry? Its become a nice little earner for Anna, slagging off the SWP.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Ah that's easy to get around, we were using her for all that time. 7 years work for nothing etc
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Ah, the plot thins, to quote Ed Rearden.
And she earns how much, exactly, from posts like the one on Socialist Unity?
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
but not Sedgwick or Widgery.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
no, once a splitter always a splitter
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
The classic line applicable both for deviationists and for unwittingly harboured neofascists:
I imagine Anna Chen is talking about John Rees there, is that right?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
from the post, nowt. From the bits of media work she picks up from it....a bit
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
absolutely - he who viciously assaulted her with a balloon
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
A "bit", eh? So the milky bars are on Anna?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
dunno - I believe she is lactose intolerant
racist
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Victor Serge and Chris Harman are all now tweeting and posting in favour of the CC's line on the party dispute...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victor-Serge/46605587356?ref=ts&fref=ts
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victor-Serge/46605587356?ref=ts&fref=ts
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Well oh well sorry to have offended you. Not that my motivation matters the slightest I guess but the idea that the swp has secret members posing as exes so they can jump to the party's defence at times like this is kind of cute, if mad. I have no secret lines of communication, the only people who have shared any detail are the opposition folks I know.
I never claimed to be non partisan and soon after I first heard about this mess (haven't watched the debates in the swp that closely for years but this one kind of demnaded attention) I decided that politically I knew which side I was on between the loyalists and the seymourites. I sincerely hope two things, a) that the swp survives this crisis and b) that they don't lose too many of the moderate opposition when the syriza-lite bunch split/are expelled.
Whether they also pick up the odd ex member is the least important thing but I'm sure they will because as you say a crisis like this makes people reconsider everything. Personally I doubt they care about regaining burnt out folks no matter how formally 'loyal' they are.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Can you link to a single paid for article by Chen profiting from slagging off the SWP?( not that think you are simply smearing sectarian bullshit against someone who says uncomfortable things about your party, I just would like to read one)
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Removed as requested
I still dislike bolshiebhoy's argument.
I still dislike bolshiebhoy's argument.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
The Prof's FB page has an interesting exchange between him and Paul Le Blanc of the ISO about the latter's article. Loads of other people jump in but this is their bit of the thread:
Alex Callinicos: The best thing about Paul Le Blanc's thoughtful piece is its title, 'Leninism is Unfinished'. This completely corresponds to my argument that a tradition is continued by creatively applying it to new cases. But there is a sting in the tail here. I don't argue that the model of democratic centralism the SWP has evolved corresponds to some timeless Idea of Democratic Centralism. Self-evidently there are differences between our practice and that of the Bolsheviks or the KPD at different points in their histories. So what? The interesting question is whether our model fits the conditions of building a small revolutionary party in Britain today. After a series of debates notably in June 2009 and January 2013 SWP conferences have decided that (with various modifications) it does. No doubt this debate will continue and our model will carry on evolving. But the efforts at knock-down refutations by citing this or that that Lenin wrote about party organization at different points in his political career are mere dogmatism (and hypocrisy as well when they don't correspond to the practice of the quoter's own organization).
Paul Le Blanc: RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE ON DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM
I appreciate Alex Callincios’s kind word about the title of my contribution, and I want to assure him that I meant to hide no “sting in the tail” of either the title or the contribution as a whole. It may feel that way because we are dealing with thorny questions, felt especially keenly given the crisis in the British SWP. The pathway to overcoming the crisis lies in trying to grapple with these questions in a serious way, so I appreciate Alex’s effort to respond to what I have written as at least an aspect of a larger process that will clarify and hopefully help to resolve the crisis. I am not sure some of his formulations help move things in that direction, but it is worth continuing the discussion.
I very much agree with Alex assertion that "a tradition is continued by creatively applying it to new cases" and agree also agree that it is absolutely NOT the case that "the model of democratic centralism the SWP has evolved corresponds to some timeless Idea of Democratic Centralism." An obvious question is whether the variant of democratic centralism developed within the British SWP should be “some timeless idea” or – given the problems highlighted by the current crisis in the organization – needs to give way to a different variant.
Since Alex has also, from time to time, quoted from Lenin, I know he will agree with me that doing so is not always a reversion to dogmatism, but sometimes can be helpful, nonetheless, in helping to clarify what Leninism is and can be, in providing possible insights into problems revolutionaries face, and so on. It is disappointing, therefore, that he seems to want simply to wave aside what Lenin had to say rather than to engage with the substance of the points Lenin advances, which I think would have been helpful.
Passed over in silence is one of the central points in my article – that the SWP is not “the” revolutionary party (small or large) but is (can be, should be) an element in the much-needed revolutionary party of the future that can only be forged through mass struggles in which other forces on the left and in the broader workers movement will also engage – a reality which cries out for a certain openness, I think, and which helps to define variants of democratic centralism at this time. I know this outlook informs the practice of the organization I belong to, but it appears to me that the same may not be true for the SWP and that this may be part of the problem. It would have been helpful if Alex had engaged with some of this.
Most disappointing is Alex’s concluding comment (a sort of sledge-hammer in the tail) that “efforts at knock-down refutations by citing this or that that Lenin wrote about party organization at different points in his political career are mere dogmatism (and hypocrisy as well when they don't correspond to the practice of the quoter's own organization)." I have tried to deal with the “dogmatism” charge above but am less certain what to do with the charge of hypocrisy. But that is the note I seem forced to conclude on – but which I prefer to turn into something else than some kind of counter-charge.
While it appears to me that there actually are some differences between the functioning of the SWP and my organization, this hardly means that the ISO conforms to some perfect and beautiful “timeless idea of Democratic Centralism” – a conception that both Alex and I reject. As any thoughtful ISO member will agree, the ISO has its own imperfections. I have indicated above one key aspect where I suspect our two organizations differ. Another difference, obviously, is that the ISO is not currently in the kind of crisis that is wracking the British SWP. This does not mean that there will not be a crisis – there probably will be, since crisis is generally a precondition for growth, necessary adjustment, and further development (as I would like to think will be the outcome for the British SWP).
The present crisis of the SWP is one that affects all of us, challenges all of us, on the revolutionary left throughout the world, particularly those of us operating in the framework of the Leninist tradition. A critical engagement with that challenge means that all of us, not simply the British comrades, must struggle to understand things better, do things better, push forward more effectively as revolutionaries than may have been the case before the crisis.
Alex Callinicos: Paul, the accusations of dogmatism and hypocrisy weren't directed at you. I welcome your contribution as constructive and helpful. The sting in the tail was all mine. Of course, the SWP doesn't conceive itself as THE revolutionary party. As I said, we're a small revolutionary party trying to become bigger and more influential. In that respect, we're quite like the ISO (and of course our intellectual background and much of our history are shared). But we have considerable experience of building united fronts 'in which other forces on the left and in the broader workers movement will also engage'. I'm sorry that you haven't addressed this experience more (I mentioned it in my initial response to your article: somewhere lower down my Wall). And, yes, this is 'a reality which cries out for a certain openness, I think, and which helps to define variants of democratic centralism at this time'. What we have tried to do since the Respect crisis is, while not abandoning the strong features of the model of democratic centralism that we had developed earlier, to open out to the rest of the left. What we are trying to work out now is how to protect what we have achieved under unprecedented attack from a group of members who are trying to use pressure from outside to compensate for their weakness within the SWP. This isn't easy: hence my irritation with some of the self-righteous and ill-informed commentary that has been directed our way. But - to repeat - this wasn't aimed at you.
Alex Callinicos: The best thing about Paul Le Blanc's thoughtful piece is its title, 'Leninism is Unfinished'. This completely corresponds to my argument that a tradition is continued by creatively applying it to new cases. But there is a sting in the tail here. I don't argue that the model of democratic centralism the SWP has evolved corresponds to some timeless Idea of Democratic Centralism. Self-evidently there are differences between our practice and that of the Bolsheviks or the KPD at different points in their histories. So what? The interesting question is whether our model fits the conditions of building a small revolutionary party in Britain today. After a series of debates notably in June 2009 and January 2013 SWP conferences have decided that (with various modifications) it does. No doubt this debate will continue and our model will carry on evolving. But the efforts at knock-down refutations by citing this or that that Lenin wrote about party organization at different points in his political career are mere dogmatism (and hypocrisy as well when they don't correspond to the practice of the quoter's own organization).
Paul Le Blanc: RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE ON DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM
I appreciate Alex Callincios’s kind word about the title of my contribution, and I want to assure him that I meant to hide no “sting in the tail” of either the title or the contribution as a whole. It may feel that way because we are dealing with thorny questions, felt especially keenly given the crisis in the British SWP. The pathway to overcoming the crisis lies in trying to grapple with these questions in a serious way, so I appreciate Alex’s effort to respond to what I have written as at least an aspect of a larger process that will clarify and hopefully help to resolve the crisis. I am not sure some of his formulations help move things in that direction, but it is worth continuing the discussion.
I very much agree with Alex assertion that "a tradition is continued by creatively applying it to new cases" and agree also agree that it is absolutely NOT the case that "the model of democratic centralism the SWP has evolved corresponds to some timeless Idea of Democratic Centralism." An obvious question is whether the variant of democratic centralism developed within the British SWP should be “some timeless idea” or – given the problems highlighted by the current crisis in the organization – needs to give way to a different variant.
Since Alex has also, from time to time, quoted from Lenin, I know he will agree with me that doing so is not always a reversion to dogmatism, but sometimes can be helpful, nonetheless, in helping to clarify what Leninism is and can be, in providing possible insights into problems revolutionaries face, and so on. It is disappointing, therefore, that he seems to want simply to wave aside what Lenin had to say rather than to engage with the substance of the points Lenin advances, which I think would have been helpful.
Passed over in silence is one of the central points in my article – that the SWP is not “the” revolutionary party (small or large) but is (can be, should be) an element in the much-needed revolutionary party of the future that can only be forged through mass struggles in which other forces on the left and in the broader workers movement will also engage – a reality which cries out for a certain openness, I think, and which helps to define variants of democratic centralism at this time. I know this outlook informs the practice of the organization I belong to, but it appears to me that the same may not be true for the SWP and that this may be part of the problem. It would have been helpful if Alex had engaged with some of this.
Most disappointing is Alex’s concluding comment (a sort of sledge-hammer in the tail) that “efforts at knock-down refutations by citing this or that that Lenin wrote about party organization at different points in his political career are mere dogmatism (and hypocrisy as well when they don't correspond to the practice of the quoter's own organization)." I have tried to deal with the “dogmatism” charge above but am less certain what to do with the charge of hypocrisy. But that is the note I seem forced to conclude on – but which I prefer to turn into something else than some kind of counter-charge.
While it appears to me that there actually are some differences between the functioning of the SWP and my organization, this hardly means that the ISO conforms to some perfect and beautiful “timeless idea of Democratic Centralism” – a conception that both Alex and I reject. As any thoughtful ISO member will agree, the ISO has its own imperfections. I have indicated above one key aspect where I suspect our two organizations differ. Another difference, obviously, is that the ISO is not currently in the kind of crisis that is wracking the British SWP. This does not mean that there will not be a crisis – there probably will be, since crisis is generally a precondition for growth, necessary adjustment, and further development (as I would like to think will be the outcome for the British SWP).
The present crisis of the SWP is one that affects all of us, challenges all of us, on the revolutionary left throughout the world, particularly those of us operating in the framework of the Leninist tradition. A critical engagement with that challenge means that all of us, not simply the British comrades, must struggle to understand things better, do things better, push forward more effectively as revolutionaries than may have been the case before the crisis.
Alex Callinicos: Paul, the accusations of dogmatism and hypocrisy weren't directed at you. I welcome your contribution as constructive and helpful. The sting in the tail was all mine. Of course, the SWP doesn't conceive itself as THE revolutionary party. As I said, we're a small revolutionary party trying to become bigger and more influential. In that respect, we're quite like the ISO (and of course our intellectual background and much of our history are shared). But we have considerable experience of building united fronts 'in which other forces on the left and in the broader workers movement will also engage'. I'm sorry that you haven't addressed this experience more (I mentioned it in my initial response to your article: somewhere lower down my Wall). And, yes, this is 'a reality which cries out for a certain openness, I think, and which helps to define variants of democratic centralism at this time'. What we have tried to do since the Respect crisis is, while not abandoning the strong features of the model of democratic centralism that we had developed earlier, to open out to the rest of the left. What we are trying to work out now is how to protect what we have achieved under unprecedented attack from a group of members who are trying to use pressure from outside to compensate for their weakness within the SWP. This isn't easy: hence my irritation with some of the self-righteous and ill-informed commentary that has been directed our way. But - to repeat - this wasn't aimed at you.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
barney for your benefit I'll repeat that it is possible to believe the dc made mistakes AND that seymour is a cock
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I believe both these things as it happens.
Similar threads
