SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Sean Delaney]

And in his case a not even very close reading of his often turgid and thesaurus fuelled prose can only lead to the conclusion that what he has to say is we need a looser, identity politics friendly mash up of revolutionaries and left reformists along the lines of the almighty Syriza.

I don't think so. The SWP are the British version of Syriza already, minus the membership or popularity. But they are a complete mirror image. Bureaucratic top layer, passive membership.

The SWP would love to be the new Syriza, loyalists or so-called 'opposition' all. Lets face it, that is what they base their whole strategy on. And look what the leading theoreticians of the so-called 'Marxist' left have to say about the mess in Greece - they all want to see the establishment of a state managed war-economy. Like my nan used to say 'the war was great. It brought all the people together dear.'

It ain't ever gonna happen, but the fantasy keeps a steady line of recruits turning up at the queue where people sign their names and fill out the bit for SWP bank direct debit/standing orders.

And so keeps the whole SWP racket on the road.

 

[Sean Delaney]

The SWP CC should do what the Situationist International did in 1971.

Liquidate. Initiate the first adventure in revolutionary politics in the history of Britain.Why are British revolutionaries so crap? The fuck awful British surrealists set the precident. Bunch of milk sops.

Oh no, hold on, the fight against austerity and tory cuts will collapse without the SWP. I forgot.

 

[manny-p]

My swp informant has gone quiet. Any more shit going down?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Interesting how they talk about the Platform briefly, and then talk on behalf of the whole faction.

That's pretty straightforward: The CC's whole strategy is to split the "hard" oppositionists from the "soft" ones, and their strategy in response has to be to try to pull the different parts of the opposition together.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

What you on about bolshie'? The ability of the SWP to use internal intimidation as a 'solution' to political dissent will be recognised by any current (or previous) long term member. Most often in the past it has been relatively small scale, involving individuals/ branches/districts etc, but it is a well rehearsed aspect of an authoritarian culture that has developed over decades.

Today intimidatory bullying is been utilised by the CC as a substitute for proper discussion precisely because they fear the consequences of an open and far reaching debate - in other words, because they have judged that the groundswell of dissent is escalating beyond that which they can control by rational argument.

Its easy to follow provided you don't have your head up your arse.

Where is the evidence for this beyond the Paltform's vague claims? All I am hearing is branches in constant turmoil with people doing nothing but discuss all of this, sometimes in aggressive ways but mostly with a minimum of civility. I do know the behaviour you're talking about, course I do. I was at the receiving end myself once or twice, including being called a racist by one young Dublin hack at the end of the war in Kuwait for disagreeing with his estimate of the strength of the anti war movement. The important thing is that when someone demanded the slur of racism be taken back the hack was forced to because the culture of most IS branches isn't quite as corrupt as detractors like to think and if hacks overstep the mark there will be enough of the Pat Stacks around to pull them up. And the majority will usually cohere against the hack and his methods even while maybe agreeing with the political argument he's pursuing, badly. let's be honest here the platform have had an incredible degree of freedom to provoke and publically criticise their comrades and the administrative response has been pretty damn mild.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

That's pretty straightforward: The CC's whole strategy is to split the "hard" oppositionists from the "soft" ones, and their strategy in response has to be to try to pull the different parts of the opposition together.

A more cynical eye might say they are less interested in factional unity than in hegemonising the rest of the faction. Not that Stack or Barker or likely to fall for Seymour's charms beyond tactical unity on dc reform.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

let's be honest here the platform have had an incredible degree of freedom to provoke and publically criticise their comrades and the administrative response has been pretty damn mild.

This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.

 

[electric.avenue]

Is it just me or does it feel like Leningrad 1941 in London right now? Minus Shostakovich, but the snowy streets, babushkas wrapped up in furs against the unforgiving cold, more snow and the biting wind. Desperation written in the faces of all those queuing for provisions at Waitrose, and internecine warfare between the renegades and the central committee.

No?

It's icy cold in the north too.

Yes, all seems ominous, weatherwise and politicswise.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

A more cynical eye might say they are less interested in factional unity than in hegemonising the rest of the faction.

Of course they want to win the softer elements to their views, but the overriding concern (for purely "cynical" or more accurately tactical) reasons is to keep the bloc together and stop the CC from isolating them.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I don't think so. The SWP are the British version of Syriza already, minus the membership or popularity. But they are a complete mirror image. Bureaucratic top layer, passive membership.

The SWP would love to be the new Syriza, loyalists or so-called 'opposition' all. Lets face it, that is what they base their whole strategy on. And look what the leading theoreticians of the so-called 'Marxist' left have to say about the mess in Greece - they all want to see the establishment of a state managed war-economy. Like my nan used to say 'the war was great. It brought all the people together dear.'

It ain't ever gonna happen, but the fantasy keeps a steady line of recruits turning up at the queue where people sign their names and fill out the bit for SWP bank direct debit/standing orders.

And so keeps the whole SWP racket on the road.

Sorry not being snide here but don't understand your point SD. Leave aside the regimes of the two parties for a minute (which may or may not be similar) in what sense do they share the same politics or does one aspire to be the other? I think the SWP knows it could never have the sort of electoral strength of Syriza without stopping being what it is. They might want to be part of a looser electoral coalition at some point that has similar votes but that's not the same as being that party themselves is it?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.

I'm sure we agree on why they haven't expelled Seymour and the other leaders. But I'm not sure they even want to expell the majority of the softer platform supporters, they'd rather have the argument with them until it's obviously lost. Fact remains that whatever the cc's motivations the internal regime right now is pretty close to a free for all with people saying damn near anything they please, in every forum.

 

[two sheds]

Fact remains that whatever the cc's motivations the internal regime right now is pretty close to a free for all with people saying damn near anything they please, in every forum.

Surely not .... freedom of speech?

 

[treelover]

Surely not .... freedom of speech?

great....

 

[SLK]

This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.

Yes, bolshie might want to reflect on the fact that the CC is 4 parts people he refused to obey as organisers back in the day!!

I don't want to stroke his ego, but THEN he was a source of political argument they couldn't match. Maybe they can now.

 

[SLK]

This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.

You Millies would have got shot asap?

 

[SLK]

I had an interesting discussion with a UAF Officers Group member tonight. Will update soon.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You Millies would have got shot asap?

No, we'd have made them read telephone directory size exchanges of internal documents until they all left out of boredom.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I had an interesting discussion with a UAF Officers Group member tonight. Will update soon.

Well get on with it, you tease.

 

[SLK]

I know this won't be a shock, but Delta is not now a part of the UAF officers group. The person I spoke to (who has long since left the SWP and has no job, but once worked FT for their magazine) was of the opinion that this wouldn't affect UAF. He actually said the it was - oh I can't remember.

 

[SLK]

As I said!

 

[Das Uberdog]

the axe may have fallen then

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Surely not .... freedom of speech?

God forbid anyone should remove anyone's freedom of speech and actually nobody is. RS is of course free to say whatever he likes on his blog and in his Guardian articles. And equally the majority of the swp have the right to decide that what he's saying puts him beyond the pale of what constitutes a member. Comradeship comes with certain rights and duties in any left organisation serious about getting it's message across. It's hard enough to argue for revolutionary ideas in this world without your own comrades - some of whom have carved out a bit of a niche inside the dominant, mainstream media - using their pulpits to demand the demise of your democratically elected leadership and generally doing their best to convince people your organisation should be shunned. And yes I know the answer will be that the cc/dc have made the party toxic all on their own but the arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed. Now maybe they're right and such parties have had their day but what they can't do is act surprised if the small, leninist party they're attacking chooses to part company with them at some point.

 

[Andy Wilson]

the arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed.

Don't make me laugh. This is exactly the same lie that the CC are spreading, claiming that anyone who disagrees with their peculiar interpretation of Leninism is attacking Leninism itself.

And Smith may or may not have been removed as a UAF officer - if he has, I would encourage you to check whether LMHR gained a new full time officer at the same moment.

"some of whom have carved out a bit of a niche inside the dominant, mainstream media"

Like Marx, Engels, Trotsky and a hundred others working as journalists perhaps?

 

[redcogs]

God forbid anyone should remove anyone's freedom of speech and actually nobody is. RS is of course free to say whatever he likes on his blog and in his Guardian articles. And equally the majority of the swp have the right to decide that what he's saying puts him beyond the pale of what constitutes a member. Comradeship comes with certain rights and duties in any left organisation serious about getting it's message across. It's hard enough to argue for revolutionary ideas in this world without your own comrades - some of whom have carved out a bit of a niche inside the dominant, mainstream media - using their pulpits to demand the demise of your democratically elected leadership and generally doing their best to convince people your organisation should be shunned. And yes I know the answer will be that the cc/dc have made the party toxic all on their own but the arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed. Now maybe they're right and such parties have had their day but what they can't do is act surprised if the small, leninist party they're attacking chooses to part company with them at some point.

i'm unconvinced by this characterisation of RS. Since when did questioning the handling of possible sex abuse by a leading party member become illegitimate? In the real world (of leaked transcripts and internet gossip) it was always inevitable that some version of events would surface, so the reaction to the transcript amongst layers of people hostile to the swp was predictable, and will have surprised very few seasoned observers. The really damaging aspect of this affair relates to those in the wider movement (such as it is), those who are the very people that the party regards as the material for future growth and who can be influenced politically. Many amongst them have now distanced themselves from the revolutionary left on the grounds of a loss of trust - presumably they are now believing that if the party of radical change cannot get its own affairs in order then it could not be a fit organisation to conduct any transition to a new socialised society.

If Seymour is actually encouraging (and i'm not certain he is) greater openness within the swp, and a higher degree of accountability amongst the leadership. and a questioning process about the particular interpretation that Cliff created of Lenin, then he is actually addressing important aspects of a critical issue - that is, how can the real Left generate greater influence and respect in a diffuse and demoralised workers movement.

You appear to be suggesting that what is really needed in this period of history is a "small leninist organisation". If the SWP maintains its current strategy, and refuses to adapt to the changed circumstances of an internet conducted world, then i expect that desire will be guaranteed.

 

[Plastic Red]

hello, I'm a new poster here. I have been following this car crash with a lot of interest over the last few weeks. I was a member of the SWP for a couple of years in the early nineties. Having all this stuff come out over the internet has explained a lot of my experiences as a member. The weird slate system which I was utterly unaware of while a member is amazing for an organisation that is supposed fighting for socialism. To have such an undemocratic and bureaucratic method of selecting leadership regardless of which tradition it claims to be in must be counter productive to creating an revolutionary organsation for change from below.

 

[redcogs]

Where is the evidence for this beyond the Paltform's vague claims? All I am hearing is branches in constant turmoil with people doing nothing but discuss all of this, sometimes in aggressive ways but mostly with a minimum of civility. I do know the behaviour you're talking about, course I do. I was at the receiving end myself once or twice, including being called a racist by one young Dublin hack at the end of the war in Kuwait for disagreeing with his estimate of the strength of the anti war movement. The important thing is that when someone demanded the slur of racism be taken back the hack was forced to because the culture of most IS branches isn't quite as corrupt as detractors like to think and if hacks overstep the mark there will be enough of the Pat Stacks around to pull them up. And the majority will usually cohere against the hack and his methods even while maybe agreeing with the political argument he's pursuing, badly. let's be honest here the platform have had an incredible degree of freedom to provoke and publically criticise their comrades and the administrative response has been pretty damn mild.

Its no good justifying bullying as a legitimate form of political discourse bolshie. Socialists need to be about the prospect of the strong defending the weak, the able protecting the less so etc etc. Any internal process that places the big stick in the hands of a placeman (or woman) to wave over perceived recalcitrants is an abuse of authority and delegitimates that authority in any event.

Politics is served by rational persuasion. Bullying, as you know from your own account here, can be extremely unpleasant. But when it has become the main method for curtailing dissent then those perpetrating the intimidation have lost any entitlement to any respect.

On the evidence for bullying within the swp currently, there is some on the IS site. As you state, much of it is pretty vague, but my own experience tells me to believe what i have read there. It sounds as though your experiences ought to alert you to the strong possibility that it is indeed an actuality. Marxists ought to have no room for bullying our side, don't we reserve the strong arm for our well healed and tyrannical opponents?

 

[Oisin123]

... The arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed. Now maybe they're right and such parties have had their day ...

bolshiebhoy, you have one or two people here who stick up for you now and again. But you've exasperated me beyond all sympathy with the way you put this line across again and again. It's time to provide us with some evidence or drop it as the lie that Andy quite right calls you on. Give us a link or a quote from RS that in any way argues that Leninist parties have had their day. Or duck your head in shame that you are caught smearing the opposition with the same avoidance tactics that the CC are using.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course you have

Try a bit harder not to be a cunt, eh?

 

[KeeperofDragons]

hello, I'm a new poster here. I have been following this car crash with a lot of interest over the last few weeks. I was a member of the SWP for a couple of years in the early nineties. Having all this stuff come out over the internet has explained a lot of my experiences as a member. The weird slate system which I was utterly unaware of while a member is amazing for an organisation that is supposed fighting for socialism. To have such an undemocratic and bureaucratic method of selecting leadership regardless of which tradition it claims to be in must be counter productive to creating an revolutionary organsation for change from below.

And enough members have picked up flack for pointing this out

 

[barney_pig]

Isn't it despicable how this affair has been the excuse for individual members of the SWP to be the subject of vitriolic and opportunistic attacks by members of the pro war pro cuts Labour Party.