SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Andy Wilson]

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.htm.

So, in answer to the direct question - where do the Democratic Renewal people reject Leninism, you don't offer any evidence whatsover... BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY. None. None at all. The worst you can come up with is that, reading some comments by Richard seymour, you conclude that the opposition follow a 'pre-October' version of Leninism. This is historical and political nonsense, and cannot possibly be borne out with evidence, because no such evidence exists. In short, in order to cover up allegations of rape, and the disgusting treatment of very young women complaining of sexual harassment in your party, you are prepared to make up a political argument as you go along. There is no surprise there though, because that is exactly what Professor Callinicos is doing.

What HAS been rejected by the platform opposition is the SWP's inflexible commitment, in all historical circumstances, to the militarised concept of party organisation that the Bolsheviks adopted at the height of the civil war. I think they were wrong to abolish factions then, but at least they weren't stupid enough to argue that this was the 'perfected' form of Leninism that should be followed for all time.

Consider this rubbish: there is no evidence of Seymour abandoning Leninism but only because he is too ashamed to admit it, because that would be "giving the game away". So, there is no evidence against the accused because they have hidden it. All the same, you can tell just by looking at them that they are Mensheviks. What a crock of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

On top of that, you have chosen Richard Seymour to pick on because that is what your CC have done. Like them, you assume that since he is a public intellectual, therefore he must be in charge. He isn't - he is simply a well-known member of the platform. The people leading the platform are mostly long-term members of the SWP. The people expelled for fighting the bureaucratic cover-up were all full-timers with years of time int he party. The idea that they have all decided to 'abandon Leninism' in response to a sexual scandal is just blowing smoke.

By the way - do you remember back in the day, when Tony Cliff used to argue that Rosa Luxemburg was a batter guide on questions of party organisation than Lenin? Perhaps that's where all this 'abandoning Leninism' started - with the formation of the Socialist Review Group.

 

[cesare]

So when the SWP expel a full timer (and by "full timer" I'm presuming they're employed full time) this is another way of saying "dismiss" is it? They lose their job?

 

[two sheds]

Well if so, I hope they were given two written warnings first.

 

[cesare]

Well if so, I hope they were given two written warnings first.

Gross misconduct offence I imagine - summary dismissal. But all that's the bourgeois court system, so no-one would ever pursue the matter further. Until the great day dawns when someone actually does, of course.

 

[mk12]

So when the SWP expel a full timer (and by "full timer" I'm presuming they're employed full time) this is another way of saying "dismiss" is it? They lose their job?

I think we should try to unionise the FTers.

 

[cesare]

I think we should try to unionise the FTers.

They'd have to be in a management union like AMPS though

 

[barney_pig]

I'd be surprised if they do much more than break even on the papers, it's certainly no money spinner.

The Paper is a totem of Leninist organisation, its role is not to create revenue for the party but as organiser and political Voice linking the centre to its periphery. Historically, the first action following any split or rupture within a Leninist group has been to secure a press and produce its own paper. The paper is a one way conduit of information and control from the top down.
Indeed, so important is the paper to Leninism that when a few years back, the cpgb WW had an influx of young students who wondered why they were slogging with a print paper when everyone really read online, and voted at their conference to do away with the printed paper, the pcc simply ignored the vote and carried on regardless. ( the crash of the cpgb website at the same time, and the length of time to reset it was very convenient for the leadership)
Eventually the majority of new members drifted away and business could continue as usual.

 

[ska invita]

The Paper is a totem of Leninist organisation, its role is not to create revenue for the party but as organiser and political Voice linking the centre to its periphery. Historically, the first action following any split or rupture within a Leninist group has been to secure a press and produce its own paper.

im only now slowly reading up on aspects of the russian revolutions and the number of papers lenin and trotsky started/wrote for is mind-boggling

 

[ska invita]

I can't see any reason the obsesssion with paper sales.

its a fetishisation of the russian revolution. A belief that all true paths can be learned from studying the period (ad nauseum)

 

[butchersapron]

its a fetishisation of the russian revolution. A belief that all true paths can be learned from studying the period (ad nauseum)

Not really, it's fetishisation of the methods of the early workers movements as a whole at a time before mass democracy could establish itself as 'proper politics' with widespread participation (however weak) - and when the technological and communication options open to that unenfranchised mass were severely limited.

 

[ska invita]

Not really, it's fetishisation of the methods of the early workers movements as a whole at a time before mass democracy could establish itself as 'proper politics' with widespread participation (however weak) - and when the technological and communication options open to that unenfranchised mass were severely limited.

you have to be contrary don't you!
im sticking with what i said

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I don't think the 'less or more advanced' stuff is about knowledge so much as having the right politics.

This is how Lenin talked about advanced workers in the context of the party paper; he is pretty specific and it's not just about having the right politics:

The history of the working class movements in all countries shows that the better situated strata of the working class respond to the ideas of socialism more rapidly and more easily. From among these come, in the main, the advanced workers that every working class movement brings to the fore, those who can win the confidence of the labour masses, who devote themselves entirely to the education and organisation of the proletariat, who accept socialism consciously, and who even elaborate independent socialist theories. Every viable working class movement has brought to the fore such working class leaders, its own Proudhons, Vaillants, Weitlings, and Bebels . . . who despite their wretched living conditions, despite the stultifying penal servitude of factory labour possess so much character and will power that they study, study, study, and turn themselves into conscious Social Democrats -- 'The working class intelligentsia'. . . We must make every effort to ensure that its ranks are regularly reinforced, tat its lofty requirements are met . . . The newspaper that wants to become the organ of all Russian Social Democrats must, therefore, be at the level of the advanced workers; not only must it not lower its level artificially, but, on the contrary it must raise it constantly, it must follow up all the tactical political and theoretical problems of world Social Democracy.​

​

After the numerically small stratum of advanced workers comes the broad stratum of average workers. These workers too, strive ardently for socialism, participate in study circles and agitation, and differ from the preceding stratum only in that they cannot become fully independent leaders of the Social Democratic working class movement. The average worker will not understand some of the articles in a newspaper that aims to be the organ of the party, he will not be able to get a full grasp of an intricate theoretical or practical problem. This does not at all mean that the newspaper must lower itself to the level of the mass of its readers. The newspaper, on the contrary, must raise their level and help promote advanced workers from the middle stratum of workers. Such workers, absorbed by local, practical work and interested mainly in the events of the working class movement and the immediate problems of agitation, should connect their every act with thoughts of the entire Russian working class movement, is historical task, and the ultimate goal of socialism, so that the newspaper, the mass of whose readers are average workers, must connect socialism and the political struggle with every local and narrow question.​

​

Lastly, behind the stratum of average workers comes the mass that constitutes the lower strata of the proletariat. It is quite possible that a socialist newspaper will be completely or well-nigh incomprehensible to them . . . but it would be absurd to conclude from this that the newspaper of the social democrats should adapt itself to the lowest possible level of the workers. The only thing that follows from this is that different forms of agitation must be brought to bear on these strata -- pamphlets written in more popular language, oral agitation, and chiefly -- leaflets on local events . . . arousing the consciousness of the lower strata of the workers may have to take a form of legal educational activities.​

(Collected Works, vol.4, pp.282-84).​

​

The question arises, is this the Leninism that the Prof et. al. are appealing to, or is it a historically specific past its sell by date Leninism that can be ignored? If the answer is the latter, then what marks it out from democractic centralism or the ban on factions (both products of a particular time and place)?

 

[The39thStep]

capitalists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone. often, it's true, on the capitalist side. so saying that leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone leaves one important question unanswered: which side were they on? objectively there have been a number of occasions when they've been very much on the side of reaction, on the capitalist side. taking the party which is the subject of this thread, i think many people would say that objectively their pursuit of the growth of the party and their pursuit of the maintenance of the swp's dominant role on the left led them to do things which were reactionary. their smashing of the socialist alliance. their promotion of the respect: the unity coalition. their role in the anl mk2. their role in the stop the war coalition. and that's just the most obvious parts off the top of my head. other leninist parties at other times played less than sparkling revolutionary roles. so, what could have been popular and broad-based campaigns, like the anti-war movement, were undermined by self-proclaimed leninists. the presence of leninists, therefore, not always something to boast about. btw, i don't think saltley was a leninist success: i'd be really rather surprised if more than 5% of the people there were leninists, and quite taken aback if it was that proportion.

To be fair to the SWP they din't smash the Socialist Alliance, in the same way that the Socilaist Party walking away from it didn't smash the Socialist Alliance. The demise of the Socialist Alliance wasn't a reactionary or even a step backwards imo.

Similarly their role in ANL mak2 wasn't reactionary, ANL Mark 2was a step backwards in my view but hardly reactionary.

Where I disagree with Discokermit is simply this. the examplhe gave would no doubt have taken place or similar examples occured if Lenin hadn't succeeded in 1917.The syndicalist movements and the second international which were the majority workers organsiations were all central to workers militancy , and played a key role in both victories and defeats pre the formation of Communist parties. If the formation of Lenin based communist parties had not occured and a diffrent tradition had emerged Saltly Gate, the Poll Tax victory etc would still have been possible.

 

[articul8]

To be fair to the SWP they din't smash the Socialist Alliance, in the same way that the Socilaist Party walking away from it didn't smash the Socialist Alliance. The demise of the Socialist Alliance wasn't a reactionary or even a step backwards imo.
.

It most certainly was from where I was in Preston. They went from saving a deposit in a parliamentary by-election, to an SWP promoted turn to the mosques as "Socialist Alliance against the War" followed by Respect. It went from an organisation which made a credible start in beginning to build support from across w/c communities, to an ethnically divisive opportunist dead-end. Ok Lavalette's still on the council - but the whole episode was one massive wasted opportunity.

Fair enough, in some areas (primarily those where SWP were always the dominant bloc) it was still-born from the outset.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Unbelievably Jack Conrad's written piece this week is actually more boring than his podcasts.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Unbelievably Jack Conrad's written piece this week is actually more boring than his podcasts.

Try spending a day with just him and Mark Fisher...

 

[Pickman's model]

Try spending a day with just him and Mark Fisher...

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think we should try to unionise the FTers.

I recruited my SP fulltimer to Unite

 

[butchersapron]

Try it the other way round.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Don't think I'd have much luck with that one - he's an anarchist

He's done stuff with the NSSN though.

 

[discokermit]

Where I disagree with Discokermit is simply this. the examplhe gave would no doubt have taken place or similar examples occured if Lenin hadn't succeeded in 1917.The syndicalist movements and the second international which were the majority workers organsiations were all central to workers militancy , and played a key role in both victories and defeats pre the formation of Communist parties. If the formation of Lenin based communist parties had not occured and a diffrent tradition had emerged Saltly Gate, the Poll Tax victory etc would still have been possible.

i don't disagree with that at all. my point was specific about no one giving a shit in decades. if syndicalists occupied the space the leninist left has occupied those events may well have happened, greater things may even have happened over the decades and then people would have given a shit.

 

[The39thStep]

It most certainly was from where I was in Preston. They went from saving a deposit in a parliamentary by-election, to an SWP promoted turn to the mosques as "Socialist Alliance against the War" followed by Respect. It went from an organisation which made a credible start in beginning to build support from across w/c communities, to an ethnically divisive opportunist dead-end. Ok Lavalette's still on the council - but the whole episode was one massive wasted opportunity.

Fair enough, in some areas (primarily those where SWP were always the dominant bloc) it was still-born from the outset.

Well ok a step backwards for those who see/ saw the future as saving a deposit or trying to emulate the SSP.

 

[The39thStep]

i don't disagree with that at all. my point was specific about no one giving a shit in decades. if syndicalists occupied the space the leninist left has occupied those events may well have happened, greater things may even have happened over the decades and then people would have given a shit.

Ok I obviously misunderstood your point

 

[discokermit]

Ok I obviously misunderstood your point

s'alright. i think everyone did. i was a bit stoned.

 

[The39thStep]

Good use of pictures though

 

[bolshiebhoy]

So, in answer to the direct question - where do the Democratic Renewal people reject Leninism, you don't offer any evidence whatsover... BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY. None. None at all. The worst you can come up with is that, reading some comments by Richard seymour, you conclude that the opposition follow a 'pre-October' version of Leninism. This is historical and political nonsense, and cannot possibly be borne out with evidence, because no such evidence exists. In short, in order to cover up allegations of rape, and the disgusting treatment of very young women complaining of sexual harassment in your party, you are prepared to make up a political argument as you go along. There is no surprise there though, because that is exactly what Professor Callinicos is doing.

What HAS been rejected by the platform opposition is the SWP's inflexible commitment, in all historical circumstances, to the militarised concept of party organisation that the Bolsheviks adopted at the height of the civil war. I think they were wrong to abolish factions then, but at least they weren't stupid enough to argue that this was the 'perfected' form of Leninism that should be followed for all time.

Consider this rubbish: there is no evidence of Seymour abandoning Leninism but only because he is too ashamed to admit it, because that would be "giving the game away". So, there is no evidence against the accused because they have hidden it. All the same, you can tell just by looking at them that they are Mensheviks. What a crock of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

On top of that, you have chosen Richard Seymour to pick on because that is what your CC have done. Like them, you assume that since he is a public intellectual, therefore he must be in charge. He isn't - he is simply a well-known member of the platform. The people leading the platform are mostly long-term members of the SWP. The people expelled for fighting the bureaucratic cover-up were all full-timers with years of time int he party. The idea that they have all decided to 'abandon Leninism' in response to a sexual scandal is just blowing smoke.

By the way - do you remember back in the day, when Tony Cliff used to argue that Rosa Luxemburg was a batter guide on questions of party organisation than Lenin? Perhaps that's where all this 'abandoning Leninism' started - with the formation of the Socialist Review Group.

It is quite funny how you can take the boy out of the SWP but not etc....Not sure how putting things in capitals makes you any more cogent than the next ex member Andy but if it makes you feel superior carry on. it's not my cc, the only party I pay subs to these days is Labour. Seymour is picked as the 'target' you say? Think you might have joined the thread late but some of us had plenty to say about other people who've broken ranks with the mainstream IS during the debate. What eats you up more than anything is the fact that the Platform, for all your claims about its veteran leadership, has very little traction over the very real veterans who have signed up to the far more cogent Faction.

What I find funniest about your and Oisin's defence of RS on Leninism is the dancing around the edges of what he's actually saying. if he quotes approvingly the pre October practice of individual leadership elections and permanent factions that's not because he actually supports those things, oh no he's just showing that there is an alternative to the cc's definition of Leninism. Which has the virtue of allowing RS to not actually say anything substantive beyond 'more democracy less centralism please' without concretely explaining what that means. But as with his suggestion that the sclerotic cc self-immolate itself without proposing an alternative leadership it's so much irresponsible hot air. And as nature abhors a vacuum you'll have to excuse the rest of us for extrapolating from his timid hints.

Why stop with Cliff on Luxemburg Andy? Lets go the full hog and use Lenin pre 1914 on Kautsky and Bebel as the intellectual fathers of the RSDLP to prove that the rot set in with the formation of the Bolshevks. Must try harder fella.

 

[electric.avenue]

i worked with a feller who is in the edl and did time for manslaughter, which he admits privately was murder, of a black man. he also claimed he was a member of combat 18. he also grovels in front of any authority, bosses, screws, etc.
also, he reckoned his prison psychiatrist described him as a sexual predator.

i can fairly safely say, most people are more advanced than him.

if you disagree i can pm you his number and you can go camping with the eighteen stone five foot eleven freak.

With this extreme example that you've given, yes, of course, I agree that most people are more "advanced" than him.

But when we are comparing more subtle things, it is less clear who is "advanced" and who isn't, or who is "ahead" of whom. To me, the way of talking about some people as being more "advanced" implies some sort of continuum: so what are the criteria that are applied to decide where somebody is on this continuum? Are the CC more advanced than the foot soldiers? Are full timers more advanced than "lay members"? Are party members more advanced than non-party members? Are anarchists more advanced than Marxists or vice versa? Is the SP more advanced than the SWP? etc, etc.

Just another note: has anyone here read Wild Swans by Jung Chang? Her parents were both in the Communist Party of China, and active in achieving the Chinese revolution, after which, she describes, they lived on an elite street, and her and her siblings went to an elite school (if I remember correctly). Thing is, doesn't this idea of being politically advanced then foster another elite?

 

[butchersapron]

The prof is more advanced than me. The party membership says so. If it doesn't then the rationale for the party seeing longer and further dies.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm the most advanced person there is. If everyone would just listen to me we'd have communism by tomorrow tea time.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The CPGB missed their publication deadline with the juicy story this week. Not that it makes much difference, given that nobody reads the print version anyway:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/callinicos-threatens-lynch-mobs