SWP expulsions and squabbles

[audiotech]

Thinking that Militant weren't the sharpest tool in the box when it came to Irish politics is by no means confined to the IS tradition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

"Those that live by the gun shall die by the gun" was one classic I heard from a Militant supporter back in the day.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

"Those that live by the gun shall die by the gun" was one classic I heard from a Militant supporter back in the day.

Take it elsewhere.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

aah yes, and the 'healthy scepticism and distrust of all authority' was him too. And her answer to that really is terrible!

As Nigel says, everything other than those particular words in that article rather supports Stacks claim more than hers

Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority. But Talat paints a very different picture. Branches full of people who've never been exposed to the tradition's ideas (as Chanie argues) telling experienced (and generally older) female comrades that the ideas of the 80's fights with socialist feminists aren't relevant. And that explains to me why RS in his first article on all this used the phrase about "dogmatic arguments from the 80's" to rally those people. In that context the faction around Stack and Birchall aren't saving the Platform from unnncessary sanctions they're helping a very large chunk of backward people attempt to push the inheritors of the tradition's most developed arguments into the background. That's less than acceptable.

 

[barney_pig]

A name check for urban on harrys place,

 

[Scribbling S]

There is a reason Talat couldn't find anyone else to sign her piece, and it is not "passion" or whatever: It's because (a) the piece isn't written in a way that could help build the party - part of a socialists job is persuading other people, not just mouthing off. and (b) The piece is full of holes. The CC have badly mishandled not one but two investigations into "rape" allegations. They can't defend this, so try and look for all sorts of "submerged" fights instead, but they are at least a bit careful with the nonsense they churn out. Not so Talat. She says "If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes a kind of ‘truth’"Indeed. She also says "X decided to stand down from the CC in October and this was printed in IB 1 in November. So he does not work for the party and is not paid by the party and everyone in the party knows this". This is wrong twice over (1)- "x" has a position with LMHR, so he has been found a berth in the Party's gift - if he really was removed from all full time or united front work, the CC could simply announce it and end the argument. But they haven't, they've done something silly and sly, and only Talat seems to be taken in and (2) X "deciding" to stand down was due to a dodgy stitch up by the CC which even the DC said was "wrong". The truth is, this row is precisely about the CC's mishandling of rape allegations - something very serious which can't be covered up with a lot of standard socialist waffle. The way the CC is digging in - the ones who haven't resigned or gone silent - does show deeper "submerged" issues - what kind of CC wants to have a fight about their right to badly mishandle investigations into allegations of rape ? - but it really starts with the shocking issue at hand.

 

[belboid]

Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority. But Talat paints a very different picture. Branches full of people who've never been exposed to the tradition's ideas (as Chanie argues) telling experienced (and generally older) female comrades that the ideas of the 80's fights with socialist feminists aren't relevant. And that explains to me why RS in his first article on all this used the phrase about "dogmatic arguments from the 80's" to rally those people. In that context the faction around Stack and Birchall aren't saving the Platform from unnncessary sanctions they're helping a very large chunk of backward people attempt to push the inheritors of the tradition's most developed arguments into the background. That's less than acceptable.

You have an odd way of reading then!

It is clear from Talat's article that at the relevant conference session newer women were harangued by the older women - the fact that there were only two of them is irrelevant. From the lack of actual political argument in her article, I'd guess she (if not Sheila) didn't do a very good job at putting her argument forward. The whole piece reads like me denouncing someone for claiming I swore at them - despite me obviously never dreaming of stooping to such foul abuse. As SS points out, the fact that she couldnt get anyone - not Sheila, not anyone in her own branch - to sign it shows she is rather isolated. Frankly, it looks like she won the vote at last years conference, but lost the argument. And that they lost said argument after not really taking it that seriously. If there were a whole stream of people making one set of arguments, to 'answer' them with a mere two is plain insulting 'oh, we dont need to spend much time on this, its just the same old stuff.' Everything she writes completely and utterly backs up Stack.

And, again, him saying 'we need a proper debate, where we argue openly, honestly and fairly' is hardly the same as him saying 'we need to change our policies to keep these people.'

 

[Oisin123]

Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority.

And here's how the factions line up, outside the mental world of those who believe in the infalible CC. A small hard rump of inflexible bureaucratic leaders, who are protected from the impact of their mistakes by a layer of staff and older members who have long forgotten - and in most cases who never knew - how to learn 'from the class'. Against them are veterans of the party who understand that circling the wagons will hurt the party badly, but who are driven by expediency rather than principle. And then there are another minority, who are young, less steeped in party culture and who have one great strength to compensate for any political weaknesses: they tell the truth. God love 'em. I hope they find a way to remain a coherent force after 10 March.

 

[emanymton]

I have now read maybe a quarter of the thing and a couple of quick observations

1, someone will be along in a minute to point out why I am wrong but I thought the contribution titled the Disputes committee case and our politics on Women was very good.

2, There seems to be a bit of a concession offered over the dc case with this committe to look into have the dc works, I know this was already out there but a few of the loyalist contributions seem to be acknowledging that mistakes were made.
3 Apparently the faction calling for a recall conference is undemocratic, but the CC tearing up the aggred student perspective is simply a sharp turn.

Sorry for any errors and crap formating, posting from my phone.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

What is this nonsense about Talat being isolated? Half the contributions don't have more than one signature so what? Not everyone needs their hand held when putting pen to paper. For what it's worth the prof has been putting up on fb this morning links to all the male benefits debates from the 80's ISJ between macgregor, German and Molyneux. Timely hey! And Sheila has been only too happy to comment and explain the relevance of those arguments to today's debates. She even had a little dig at harmans original article on womens oppression for not being explicit enough. Talat is far from isolated on these arguments, inside or outside the party. What is true is that there is a concerted move to undermine the intelectual heritage on these questions. Consciously pursued by the likes of Seymour and unwittingly (cause many of them don't know the heritage) taken up by many younger comrades.

 

[belboid]

What is this nonsense about Talat being isolated? Half the contributions don't have more than one signature so what? Not everyone needs their hand held when putting pen to paper. For what it's worth the prof has been putting up on fb this morning links to all the male benefits debates from the 80's ISJ between macgregor, German and Molyneux. Timely hey! And Sheila has been only too happy to comment and explain the relevance of those arguments to today's debates. She even had a little dig at harmans original article on womens oppression for not being explicit enough. Talat is far from isolated on these arguments, inside or outside the party. What is true is that there is a concerted move to undermine the intelectual heritage on these questions. Consciously pursued by the likes of Seymour and unwittingly (cause many of them don't know the heritage) taken up by many younger comrades.

You seem to have difficulty understanding any of the arguments against the CC. I dont think anyone would argue that Talat's basic position was widely supported by others in the party. The question was whether they would support her vitriolic, clearly haranguing tone. Most seem to recognise that that tone is not in any way helpful (except to excite a few of those who weren't there, perhaps).

And again, you miss the point of Stacks contribution (one supported, I assume, by a large part of the faction) that the problem with the previous debates wasn't that the CC politics were fundamentally wrong, it was that they made no serious attempt to convince opponents of their position. It seems to have been - as Talat herself strongly implies - a simple denunciation of the younger comrades' views.

You do seem to be supporting the Prof's accidental comment earlier, that he wants to create a small Marxist party. If that is all you want, well, it doesn't matter if you ride roughshod over opponents, because you still have a small Marxist party. And so brilliantly Marxist too!Not a spot of vacillation in sight.

But, as we both well know, the world does not need yet another small Marxist party.

 

[chilango]

At least when Workers Power split we got memes.

 

[J Ed]

A feminist group in Sheffield (which is heavily dominated by the AWL) are holding a protest outside the SWP's talk on women's liberation today

 

[chilango]

A feminist group in Sheffield (which is heavily dominated by the AWL) are holding a protest outside the SWP's talk on women's liberation today

Pics?

 

[J Ed]

Pics?

Sorry, should have said are going to hold a protest -

JOIN THE PROTEST!

The SWP are holding a public International Women's Day Event at the Showroom at 7pm today, where a member of their Central Committee will be speaking. A number of people will be protesting this event because we believe that the SWP (and particularly their Central Committee) have no right to speak about women's liberation until they have challenged their own institutional misogyny.

We encourage others to join us, make their feelings known and ask the difficult questions which the CC are currently trying to dodge and bury.

 

[belboid]

A feminist group in Sheffield (which is heavily dominated by the AWL) are holding a protest outside the SWP's talk on women's liberation today

Jesus, i knew they were going (there has been a terrible discussion about it on the local IWW elist), but a 'formal' protest?

 

[barney_pig]

Jesus, i knew they were going (there has been a terrible discussion about it on the local IWW elist), but a 'formal' protest?

Black tie and dress dungarees?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Black tie and dress dungarees?

Yeah cause that's how all feminists dress, jeezus.

 

[belboid]

the Prof's accidental comment earlier, that he wants to create a small Marxist party.

Maybe tht comment wasn't so accidental after all. I was just flicking thru the marvellous Revolutionary Road to Socialism, where he writes explicitly that the SWP membership is 'unlikely to rise above a few thousand'. Limited aims indeed.

What happened to Dave McNally and Pete Binns,btw? Just saw their names in the back of the book and realised I'd forgotten all about them. DMs Socialism from Below was a darn good read, iirr

 

[rioted]

Yeah cause that's how all feminists dress, jeezus.

They've got no sense of humour, either.

 

[Scribbling S]

Looking at the Internal Bulletin I think you can treat the Talat piece much like the Donny G piece (although he has found a friend or two) or the Anna G “there’ll be more students next term “ piece (the latter so bad that it was withdrawn) – boneheaded screams or moans that are perfectly in tune with CC thought , but expressing it in such an embarrassing , unconvincing way that they appear on the fringe.

To understand what’s going on, I suggest concentrate on (1) The CC's own piece. It offers some discussion of ‘reform’ of the Disputes Committee in the future (but beware they also say that the Disputes Committee should be made even more secret as well). The main point there is “every member is bound to uphold and defend the decision of conference in any public forum in which it is discussed, including online. If these norms of party behaviour are breached, we expect comrades to support and defend disciplinary action up to and including expulsion to enforce the will of the party as a whole.”. So it means any SWP member who doesn’t “uphold” the justness off the disputes committee and the rightness of Comrade X, who moans about the kangaroo court or bad treatment of women bringing accusations – in any forum- should be expelled. The CC commit everyone to defending them, when they have never actually defended the case themselves in any “forum” apart from leaning on members to shut up (unless you count Alex’s pathetic Socialist Review piece) . Apart from that, worth reading the pieces written (partly) by Comrade W herself and by Pat S. They show that Pat was trying to work with a Disputes Committee procedure that was designed to allow the CC to expel members. He tried to make it fairer for the members being expelled. Ironically this meant the one time a member went to the Disputes Committee to complain about one of the CC’s mates, it all went even more wrong. Pat S tried to make it fairer, but it doesn’t seem any of the other members of the Disputes Committee stepped in to help change the way the committee looked at this very difficult issue. The piece by Comrade W and others is pretty measured – but you really need to read it (P 46-7) and think, do you really believe all those assertions that the Committee was perfectly fine ?

 

[SLK]

Edit: ignore that - mistaken!

 

[neprimerimye]

Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority. But Talat paints a very different picture. Branches full of people who've never been exposed to the tradition's ideas (as Chanie argues) telling experienced (and generally older) female comrades that the ideas of the 80's fights with socialist feminists aren't relevant. And that explains to me why RS in his first article on all this used the phrase about "dogmatic arguments from the 80's" to rally those people. In that context the faction around Stack and Birchall aren't saving the Platform from unnncessary sanctions they're helping a very large chunk of backward people attempt to push the inheritors of the tradition's most developed arguments into the background. That's less than acceptable.

You are talking out of your arse. And your apologias for the CC Faction are both noxious and in stark contradiction to the IS Tradition.

The entire opposition has been motivated and driven by one thing only to obtain revolutionary justice for comrades seen to have been wronged by Martin Smith and by a flawed system of disputes resolution. That last term is not exactly what i would like to convey in meaning but the nearest I can reach right now when I find myself angry at your idiocy.

Certainly there is a hard core of comrades who wish to resolve these cases in a manner that would provide justice for the comrades who have been wronged and would preserve the unity of the party. In the first instance this is the youth of the party and a number of well known public intellectuals. To suggest as you have more than once that this group has any other motivation or purpose is both false and insulting.

It is also wrong to claim that the comrades in question are seeking to revise the IS tradition on various questions and are ideologically alien to the SWP. In fact some of the comrades in this grouping are far more conversant with the IS Tradition than some members of the CC and certain of their camp followers. It is because they are loyal to the iconoclastic traditions of IS that they have been led to question not just the mismanagement of the CC of the cases concerning Martin Smith but other questions too. Are the answers they arrive at always right? Of course not but asking those questions is the right thing to do and it is the way IS developed. So one might not agree with say Seymour on Greece but at least he tries to think the bloody question through. (Although he is wrong on this one)

And again it is idiocy to suggest that the layers of comrades mentioned above are 'backward' and not among the chosen 'inheritors' of the traditions most developed arguments. Make no mistake it is the 'chosen', how curious that a true believer resorts to religious terminology, who are backward and who have inherited only the weakest aspects of the IS Tradition. It is the 'chosen' who have broken with the iconoclasm of IS and its opposition to substitutionism. Only the 'chosen' of the revolutionary party will be saved let all other abandon hope! Oh you pitiful pathetic joke!

Earlier today I learned that a comrade, Pete Shaw, who joined IS in 1971 resigned from the party. He was present at Saltley Gates and Orgreave and a member of the Unite rank and file Sparks committee. Must one conclude that he was a 'backward' element?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

If you're gonna dump the contents of your colostomy bag all over the thread at least check what I've said first nep. Chosen is your word not mine. People like Sheila and Talat are inheritors (because they bloody well helped develop them) of a precious set of ideas which need defending against the backward mishmash of identity politics represented by Seymour.

Its all about the method is it? Well not every iconoclast is a Widgery you know fella, sometimes they're just eclectic followers of every fad thrown up. And that's what RS is. An 'iconoclast' who adapts to Syriza and current feminist ideas isn't "bloody thinking things through" he's bolting random bits of other peoples quite fashionable - and not very iconoclastic at all - thoughts together. The ideas always need developing, absolutely. Developing not dumping. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution for example takes the abc of Marx's theory of historical stages and shows how they can be combined in uneven ways at an international level. That's iconoclasm at its best, using the method and core ideas of the giants whose shoulders you stand on to account for novel developments. And sometimes you arrive at seemingly heretical conclusions, like whole countries skipping historical stages. That's essential and we need more of that iconoclastic method cause if all people did was defend unchanging ideas then the tradition would be dead on its feet. But looking around for any old bits and pieces of theory that you can stick in the pot with Marxism and see what comes out is the other side of the coin of conservatism. It's what you do when you can't see how to develop your own ideas and settle for having a bit of everyone's. The proof is in the pudding and the fact is RS nearly always gets these things wrong. I'm all for constructive revolutions within the tradition but the inability of this opposition to actually say anything of substance beyond the disciplinary case gives the lie to your claims for it.

And once again, MS is guilty. Cause you say he has been seen to have done wrong. QED then, no need for a disciplinary process at all.

 

[belboid]

People like Sheila and Talat are inheritors (because they bloody well helped develop them) of a precious set of ideas which need defending.

I rather think that Barker, Birchall and Stack had, at the very least, as much to do with the development of those ideas than those two.

And 'seen to be' is not the same as 'is'

 

[belboid]

without going through the whole thing myself....

does any contributor dare to bring up the fact that the party is shariking and has been for years?

or the role of sean matgamna et al in introducing DC and 'leninism' into the party in the first place?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I rather think that Barker, Birchall and Stack had, at the very least, as much to do with the development of those ideas than those two.

And 'seen to be' is not the same as 'is'

Yes these ideas are theirs too, all the more reason to defend them and not celebrate an empty iconoclasm.

The faction says the women need justice for what's 'seen' but also say the case is closed. Which is it?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Maybe tht comment wasn't so accidental after all. I was just flicking thru the marvellous Revolutionary Road to Socialism, where he writes explicitly that the SWP membership is 'unlikely to rise above a few thousand'. Limited aims indeed.

What happened to Dave McNally and Pete Binns,btw? Just saw their names in the back of the book and realised I'd forgotten all about them. DMs Socialism from Below was a darn good read, iirr

Not sure what happened to those two but yes there are a lot of names who have disappeared who leave a huge gap.

On limited aims. Surely anyone who's ever listened to the Redskins album has heard Cliff say breathlessly "this side of a socialist revolution, the revolutionaries are a minority."

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What happened to Dave McNally and Pete Binns,btw? Just saw their names in the back of the book and realised I'd forgotten all about them. DMs Socialism from Below was a darn good read, iirr

I presume that's the same McNally who is a leader of the New Socialist Group in Canada. Which is to say he was involved in a more "libertarian" split from the IST years ago. Unsurprisingly that DMcN has been putting the boot into the CC faction on facebook.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I'm all for constructive revolutions within the tradition but the inability of this opposition to actually say anything of substance beyond the disciplinary case gives the lie to your claims for it.

all kinds of things are being said beyond the disciplinary. all the core IS oppositionists have been all over soviet goon boy's postings on the history and theory of the tradition, the nature of democracy, the history of the Bolshevik party and the bastardized, undemocratic tradition adopted by the SWP. you shouldn't confuse the entire opposition with the leadership of IDOOP (who are indeed guilty of what you say) with the broader membership of the faction who still have their ears open to a whole raft of ex-SWP and current SWP voices. the evidence is all over the web and easy to find - despite IDOOP's stupid commitment to limiting their conversations to internal party mechanisms still utterly controlled by the apparatus.

where i would tend to agree with you over nep is that i think the opposition is layered and chequered, and amongst its elements there are indeed some of the best elements of IS culture and tradition (who to a certain extent are pursuing their own discourses on future plans of action) as well as a whole generation of mainly youngsters who have indeed had their theoretical education defined by Lenin's Tomb over the past 10 years. then there are also a bunch of mild reformists based primarily around the apparatus in London (the core leadership of IDOOP) with incredibly limited objectives and no theoretical perspective whatsoever.

And once again, MS is guilty. Cause you say he has been seen to have done wrong. QED then, no need for a disciplinary process at all.

'Delta', 'MS', or whatever we're calling him now is at the very least guilty of harassment, for which he was removed from his post in the CC 2 years ago. his behaviour, by any rational account, was not acceptable for a member of the party and he personally has presided over the expulsions of many others for far less.

 

[butchersapron]

This IS tradition - a commitment to cliff's version of state capitalism, a commitment to argue that military keynsianism used to be central to post-war capital, that in the same period that revolutions could become deflected permanent revolutions - what else?