SWP expulsions and squabbles

[KeeperofDragons]

Here's an idea just ask the CC to explain the dialectic

 

[sihhi]

What? I very much doubt it. But to the very limited extent that Militant had any opinion had any opinion of Workers Power, it would have regarded them as irrelevant in a closely related, if not identical, way. And rightly so.

I mean: Workers' Power would see Militant as a moralist critique of anti-imperialist Trotskyism aimed at changing the world.
That's true isn't it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

That's true isn't it?

No. That wasn't their line of argument at all.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread, I've been trying to listen to the latest CPGB podcast and I can't get more than about four minutes into it before I start losing the will to live.

 

[butchersapron]

I mean the anarchoid notion that revolutionary political organisations under capitalism should be little models of a future society, like tiny little islands of communism, a notion which (a) has more in common with the desire to live in a commune than a desire to change the world and (b) has consistently led to complete organisational and strategic incompetence.

I wasn't responding to a substantive "anti-vanguardist critique" in the first place, such things being few, far between, absent from this thread, and rarely significantly related to the kind of anarchoid bollocks assumptions I was arguing against in the first place.

You certainly weren't responding to any substantive critique I agree. You were just jumping in with your own strawman, which you repeat above and which again demonstrates that you haven't ever engaged with such critiques, preferring instead to just go the liberal vicars route.

 

[redcogs]

No. That wasn't their line of argument at all.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread, I've been trying to listen to the latest CPGB podcast and I can't get more than about four minutes into it before I start losing the will to live.

When i tried the same WW facility my ears calcified - i now use a trumpet.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You want me to respond to critiques that nobody here has made? As opposed to responding to attitudes that actually are expressed here?

 

[redcogs]

i think my ear trumpet might be a device worth misplacing occasionally now i've started coming here.

 

[butchersapron]

You want me to respond to critiques that nobody here has made? As opposed to responding to attitudes that actually are expressed here?

No, i don't. I want you to seriously engage with critiques of vangaurdism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left before (and consequently i expect, in place of) jumping in and offering the sort of strawman rubbish and collected misreadings that you did up there on here.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No, i don't. I want you to seriously engage with critiques of vangaurdism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left before (and consequently i expect, in place of) jumping in and offering the sort of strawman rubbish and collected misreadings that you did up there on here.

I'm not sure why you are starting with "No I don't", given that you then go on to agree that you want me to do exactly as I suggested: Answer critiques not made on this thread rather than assumptions actually expressed on this thread. It's not a straw man when you are responding to views people actually hold.

As far as "critiques of vanguardism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left", they are ten a penny and rarely more sophisticated or convincing than the anarchoid gibberish I was responding to. In general, use of the anarcho swear word "vanguardism" serves in and of itself as an indicator that the people offering the critique probably have little or nothing of interest to say on the subject and will instead be concentrating on arguments with the straw man "Leninists" in their heads.

 

[The39thStep]

Try looking on their websites, 39thStep?

Very helpful cesare. I was obviously mistaken when I thought I might try and involve some posters on here who were either members of other groups or still are members of other groups , you know a sort of collective/collaborationist approach to sharing knowledge.

Still waiting for Afed to get back to me. Do they have business standards in terms of customer care?

 

[The39thStep]

For class war, at least in its final recent years, leadership consisted of whoever was nearby and willing to do something, did It.
This occasionally had unfortunate consequences, but worked surprising well most of the time.

You are not hinting at The Black Hand when you mention unfortunate consequences are you?

 

[The39thStep]

I favour the model of an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a two-thirds majority ...

is there a quorum for the bi weekly meeting?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not sure why you are starting with "No I don't", given that you then go on to agree that you want me to do exactly as I suggested: Answer critiques not made on this thread rather than assumptions actually expressed on this thread.

As far as "critiques of vangaurdism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left", they are rarely more sophisticated or convincing than the anarchoid gibberish I was responding to. It's not a straw man when you are responding to views people actually hold. In fact, use of the anarcho swear word "vanguardism" serves in and of itself as an indicator that the people offering the critique probably have little or nothing of interest to say on the subject.

No read again what i said. Read it carefully this time.

And this, this is where vanguardism leads you doesn't it - assuming that you know what you're talking about and offering only strawmen in support of your positons. Tell you what Nigel, given that i, an anarchist, reject exactly the sort of isolated commune bollocks that you mention above (and i reject it precisely because it's another example of vanguardism - as do most anarchists and have done so since the formation and the early days of the workers movements) and also reject vanguadism, maybe you could outline how anarchism and it's rejection of vanguardism leads precisely to embracing such pointless endeavours and how this is directly related to that rejection of vanguardism - and how i'm doing it wrong. Should be easy given how unsophisticated the tradition is.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No read again what i said. Read it carefully this time

Good to see that unnecessary condescension isn't merely a "Leninist" trait.

And this, this is where vanguardism leads you doesn't it - assuming that you know what you're talking about and offering only strawmen in support of your positons.

I think you'll find that this too is a common trait rather than one particularly associated with your "vanguardist" bogeyman, and indeed that assuming knowledge of a subject and substituting straw man arguments for engagement is not exactly unheard of amongst anarchists.

Tell you what Nigel, given that i, an anarchist, reject exactly the sort of isolated commune bollocks that you mention above (and i reject it precisely because it's another example of vanguardism - as do most anarchists and have done so since the formation and the early days of the workers movements) and also reject vanguadism, maybe you could outline how anarchism and it's rejection of vanguardism leads precisely to embracing such pointless endeavours

As someone somewhere once suggested: "No read again what i said. Read it carefully this time".

I did not suggest that anarchism necessarily leads to proposing drop out communes as political solutions. Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are). I did suggest that "pre-figurative" arguments about political organisation, ie arguments that political organisation under capitalism should be little models of a post-revolutionary society, have more in common with the desire to live in a commune than with serious strategic thinking. And further, that such arguments are a key part of why anarchist organisations are so marginal, so trivial and so ineffectual even by the marginal, trivial and ineffectual standards of the revolutionary left and why they are out-organised over and over and over again.

The logical hole between "the methods we use effect the ends we achieve" and "the methods we use must be exactly the same as the ends we achieve" is admittedly easy to overlook, but it's a hole that anarchists insist on falling into.

Interesting to hear that you are an anarchist again, though. Weren't you a supporter of the IWCA at one point fairly recently? (That's not a dig, by the way).

 

[butchersapron]

You did rather suggest that it was the end result of their rejection of vanguardism though didn't you - and their embrace of what you called 'pre-figurative bollocks" (again, something marx was rather keen on). And that was a misreading of my post anyway, which was instead suggesting that a society born out of vanguardism and that entails would be one scarred in all its features by that vanguardism, which is why it's essential to deal with it before any such future.

And this commune thing - no anarchist organisation i've ever encountered has any such thing as part of their approach, so how it could lead to their marginalisation i don't know. You yourself say "Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are)" then go on to directly say that this is the reason for both their current marginalisation and historical defeats.

My point concerning your interjection here is simple - if you are going to offer a characterisation of the views of anti-vanguardists, the traditions that they come from and what motivates them then do your research first so you don't end up posting nonsense about communes ( i mean wtf?) and so on as you did above - effectively doing the trot equivalent of someone saying to you oh you're a Communist so you support stalin killing all them people then.

Plenty of anarchists involved in the IWCA.

 

[two sheds]

is there a quorum for the bi weekly meeting?

As long as they haven't got shit all over them, we don't care.

 

[The39thStep]

You did rather suggest that it was the end result of their rejection of vanguardism though didn't you - and their embrace of what you called 'pre-figurative bollocks" (again, something marx was rather keen on). And that was a misreading of my post anyway, which was instead suggesting that a society born out of vanguardism and that entails would be one scarred in all its features by that vanguardism, which is why it's essential to deal with it before any such future.

And this commune thing - no anarchist organisation i've ever encountered has any such thing as part of their approach, so how it could lead to their marginalisation i don't know. You yourself say "Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are)" then go on to directly say that this is the reason for both their current marginalisation and historical defeats.

My point concerning your interjection here is simple - if you are going to offer a characterisation of the views of anti-vanguardists, the traditions that they come from and what motivates them then do your research first so you don't end up posting nonsense about communes ( i mean wtf?) and so on as you did above - effectively doing the trot equivalent of someone saying to you oh you're a Communist so you support stalin killing all them people then.

Plenty of anarchists involved in the IWCA.

There's always one that will let you down.......

I favour the model of an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a two-thirds majority ...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You did rather suggest that it was the end result of their rejection of vanguardism though didn't you

No.

And this commune thing - no anarchist organisation i've ever encountered has any such thing as part of their approach, so how it could lead to their marginalisation i don't know.

At this point, given that you are actually responding to a post which specifically disavowed the notion that anarchists automatically want to live in communes, I can only conclude that you are being actively disingenuous.

Most anarchist don't see living in a little model of a future society as a strategic principle, although some do. But all anarchists see building revolutionary organisations as little models of a future society as a principle. That's self-defeating, utopian, and a central cause of the marginality and ineffectualness of anarchism.

Plenty of anarchists involved in the IWCA.

How did they square the IWCA's approach to elections through almost all of its history with their anarchism?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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.

You can't have been reading very closely then to get yourself so exasperated Oisin. I've done my best on here throughout this discussion to justify with direct quotes whatever I've said about the increasingly clear politics of the platform, as well as those who've already jumped ship to Counterfire and elsewhere. That's not always easy to do as Seymour in particular is very good at saying what he's against but less clear about what he's for. Slippery chap that he is.

The feminist direction of Seymour's thought is easy enough to see. Starting with his first outburst online on the delta case which bemoaned the allegedly 'dogmatic' arguments used by the IS in the 80's against socialist feminism. And in this extended debate on the subject he makes a fairly standard feminist as opposed to marxist case for Patriarchy as a trans class category of analysis. http://left-flank.org/2013/01/15/debate-on-patriarchy-the-capitalist-mode-of-production/

The leninist thing is trickier because it's a little closer to home and harder for him to elaborate without giving the game away. But his reply to the prof's article was pretty clear in it's implication of the model of party marxists need which was basically the pre October, individually elected leadership, permanent faction model of the old RSDLP. http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/#!/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html

Not like I haven't been arguing this for the last couple of hundred pages of discussion about Seymour and others and backing it with reference to what they actually say rather than taking the cc's or anyone else's word for it. I might add that all this stuff is pretty common parlance with most of the faction who as with Stack's piece clearly know what the 'nuanced' differences of Seymour et al represent. The major difference between the prof and Stack isn't on the Syriza-lite tendency gathering around Seymour, they can both see that happening clearly enough. Their differences are a) what to do about the case that triggered this crisis and b) how to deal with the challenge to IS ideas represented by the feminist, autonomist challenge, with Stack favoring the let a thousand flowers bloom approach and the prof clearly having less patience shall we say.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

How did they square the IWCA's approach to elections through almost all of its history with their anarchism?

They were all called Murray Bookchin.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No sorry they were all called Jose Gutierrez.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

I did not suggest that anarchism necessarily leads to proposing drop out communes as political solutions. Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are). I did suggest that "pre-figurative" arguments about political organisation, ie arguments that political organisation under capitalism should be little models of a post-revolutionary society, have more in common with the desire to live in a commune than with serious strategic thinking. And further, that such arguments are a key part of why anarchist organisations are so marginal, so trivial and so ineffectual even by the marginal, trivial and ineffectual standards of the revolutionary left and why they are out-organised over and over and over again.

So we have

a) most anarchists don't want to live in communes as prefigurations of future society
followed by
b) all anarchists - and all anarchists organisations see their organisations as prefigurations of future society
and
c) and their embrace of this prefiguration stuff is why they are marginalised today and suffered historical defeats.

Can you see where this is a little confused?

a) glad you see that
b) Nope, anarchists do not seek to form organisations that are little models of future society (not that this is really a problem, why would you not, as far as possible, try and organise along lines which reject capitalist conceptions?) because they recognise that there are all sorts of restraints that capitalism places on them, and that it places on the wider w/c. And this point from you rather suggests that you don't believe a) as strongly as you may think you do in point a)
c)They don't embrace it. But let's say they did - how does it lead to marginalisation and defeats? What horrors has your mind invented about this?

(edit: going to watch football now)

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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?

You know what, I think neither I nor anyone else on here who isn't a member has much to offer on the current dispute and just how abusive things are. I feel genuinely torn on this one cause I've heard from very decent people I trust and respect in the opposition of some very nasty goings on. And I've also heard denials from people I trust and respect who are shall we say less hackish loyalists who you wouldn't (well I wouldn't anyway) expect to lie about this stuff. But benefit of the doubt surely goes to the people in the opposition who have otherwise sought to preserve some sort of comradely feelings with the loyalists and as they're saying some over the top stuff is happening I'm inclined to believe them. Can't say I'm surprised as people on all sides feel that their adult political life's work is being threatened but it's not excusable :-(

 

[discokermit]

The leninist thing is trickier because it's a little closer to home and harder for him to elaborate without giving the game away. But his reply to the prof's article was pretty clear in it's implication of the model of party marxists need which was basically the pre October, individually elected leadership, permanent faction model of the old RSDLP. http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/#!/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html

so, the bolsheviks weren't bolsheviks til after october? also, do you then believe that a revolutionary party in existence now should organise itself along the lines of a party in power and fighting a civil war in a country with little industrial development and a huge peasantry?

also, are you suggesting that seymour, a member of the swp, is less of a leninist than you, a member of the labour party?

 

[frogwoman]

I have got no problem accepting that some people are more knowledgeable than others on eg politics etc, but that doesn't always translate into actions does it? (look at the number of lefties that have "sold out" after getting successful positions etc) And also does being a member of a leninist party mean you are more advanced and more "right" than somebody who isn't the member of such a party? I don't think that it does really.

 

[redcogs]

You know what, I think neither I nor anyone else on here who isn't a member has much to offer on the current dispute and just how abusive things are. I feel genuinely torn on this one cause I've heard from very decent people I trust and respect in the opposition of some very nasty goings on. And I've also heard denials from people I trust and respect who are shall we say less hackish loyalists who you wouldn't (well I wouldn't anyway) expect to lie about this stuff. But benefit of the doubt surely goes to the people in the opposition who have otherwise sought to preserve some sort of comradely feelings with the loyalists and as they're saying some over the top stuff is happening I'm inclined to believe them. Can't say I'm surprised as people on all sides feel that their adult political life's work is being threatened but it's not excusable :-(

OK bolshie, i understand.

But behaviour within the party is to a significant degree set by the 'tone' that emerges from the leadership isn't it? And i assume that the current Party Notes have contributed to the somewhat sharp notes that are apparently becoming the commonplace of comradely behaviour?

If the CC do not want an atmosphere of rancour and recrimination they are well positioned to establish a good example no?

 

[frogwoman]

Also I don't really accept that being say a Tory or a fascist means you're less advanced in terms of your knowledge of politics and the class struggle etc. You might know all the theory but disagree with it, or you might think that what marxists view as bad was actually a good thing. And your actions might be completely contradictory to your beliefs (I'm thinking of tory union reps etc) think the whole idea of being "advanced" is a bit of a simplistic and unhelpful way of looking at things tbh.

 

[electric.avenue]

It is a bit of an un-marxist idea isn't it, the idea that some people are more "advanced" than others.

Yes, I think so. As soon as you start talking about "more advanced elements" it's almost as if you are starting to create a new form of class system.

My experience of the SWP was that it was in many ways very hierarchical. The ordinary foot soldiers were great people, some of the best I have ever met, but most of the "leading lights" were condescending and/or bullying.

 

[The39thStep]

What we really need is the sort of organisation that we can give some dosh to, participate in when we want and on what we want and one that doesn't involve flogging papers

 

[imposs1904]

Also I don't really accept that being say a Tory or a fascist means you're less advanced in terms of your knowledge of politics and the class struggle etc. You might know all the theory but disagree with it, or you might think that what marxists view as bad was actually a good thing. And your actions might be completely contradictory to your beliefs (I'm thinking of tory union reps etc) think the whole idea of being "advanced" is a bit of a simplistic and unhelpful way of looking at things tbh.

Fair point. Thatcher was one of the best instinctive class warriors of the last fifty years.