Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

The new socialist worker reports on conference

Issue: 2335 dated: 12 January 2013 News

(Snip)

Women and oppression
Socialist Worker editor Judith Orr introduced a session on the fight for women’s liberation today.

Judith pointed to the death of Savita Halappanavar last year. Savita died in Ireland after being refused a life-saving abortion, and Judith argued, “That is what women’s oppression looks like today.”

Mary from London spoke movingly about her experience of the fate of women in Britain before abortion was legalised.

Judith added that that the SWP could be proud of taking a firm line against sexism over Julian Assange and Respect MP George Galloway.

Many delegates picked up her point that it is important to “argue revolutionary politics” with activists attracted by feminist ideas.

Sue from north London said that because oppression divided workers it is important that women and men are involved in the fight against it.

Julia from Sheffield pointed to the establishment cover-up of the Jimmy Savile case saying it showed that “the ruling class protect their own”. She contrasted it to the racism that has gone along with discussion of the grooming and abuse of young women.

Judith ended the session by stressing that attacks on women’s rights were sparking resistance—and that SWP members must be central to it.

(Snip)

Factions at conference
The conference was marked by a high level of participation. Hundreds of contributions on the conference floor were matched by debates in and around the venue.

In the discussion period that leads up to conference the SWP constitution allows the formation of temporary factions by members who want to change party policy.

This year two such factions were created. They held a number of meetings around the conference venue outside of the main sessions, as did supporters of the Central Committee.

The Democratic Opposition faction formed to oppose the expulsion of four members for organising secretly outside the structures of the organisation. Conference voted to endorse the expulsions.

The Democratic Centralism faction formed to argue for an ongoing examination of the party structures. After a wide-ranging discussion conference passed a commission endorsing the existing party structures.

In part it read, “The fundamental of the democratic centralist way of organising is for there to be a maximum level of debate about the impact the party is having in the working class and how revolutionaries can best shape the class struggle.

“This debate is made by a majority vote. Once that vote has been taken all members fight to implement the decisions in a united way.”

This was passed 239 to 91. An alternative commission from the Democratic Centralism faction was defeated. At the end of conference both factions disbanded.

Leadership elections
There were two alternative slates put forward for central committee (CC), the leading body of the SWP that runs the party on a day-to-day basis.

The following people were elected to the central committee: Weyman Bennett, Mark Bergfeld, Michael Bradley, Alex Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Charlie Kimber, Amy Leather, Judith Orr, Julie Sherry and Mark L Thomas.

Two trade union activists, whose names have been withheld to protect them from their employers, were also elected to the CC. Delegates also elected a 50-strong national committee."

© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). Lying wankers
 
If I was murdered I can safely say that the SWP would be the last people I would want to investigate my death. :facepalm:
 
Yeah, but im not sure Stalincos etc are the right people to be deciding on allegations of noncery :eek:
i think their preferred destination for paedos would find favour across the political spectrum

gulag.jpg
 
If I was murdered I can safely say that the SWP would be the last people I would want to investigate my death. :facepalm:
Just though that in some ways this is quite sad considering this is the party that once had Paul Foot as a member, shows how little quality there really is in the SWP, and I guess the left as a whole these days.
 
Read Newman's defence of his publication of the transcript on SU today. amounted to "it would have been published anyway but I edit it to protect identities." Totally apolitical response that didn't answer Kimber's complaints at all.

The problem with this thread now is that you have people who are acting like frightened liberals because the police weren't called rubbing shoulders with people who can see why a left org would want a disputes committee but think the process was flawed rubbing shoulders with people who don't give a damn and just wish they could hit comrade delta next they see him as they've already convicted him. Impossible for anyone to untangle that mess of positions and given they all want to bash the SWP they won't even try to.

Personally I think Pat Stack was closest to the truth even though I find it very difficult to believe such charges of the guy concerned. But if Stack thinks the probability is on the side of some form of harassment then there will be no easy end to this becuase of them all he's the one the old school cadre will trust most. Especially given the way a section of the majority seem to have taken to nasty smears against the antis. Can't end well :-(
 
It's all everyone elses fault, we did nothing wrong, don't point the finger at us..... Whaaaaa whaaaa whaaaa......

I did notice that Kimber didn't refute a single word of the damning transcript, but swtill seems to think people finding out what the SWP got upto is worse then the details of what they got upto.....
 
The problem with this thread now is that you have people who are acting like frightened liberals because the police weren't called rubbing shoulders with people who can see why a left org would want a disputes committee but think the process was flawed rubbing shoulders with people who don't give a damn and just wish they could hit comrade delta next they see him as they've already convicted him.

It's a message board
 
wrt to the guy who was kicked out for a fight in a nightclub, i know a bit about that. the individual in question wouldn't get many social votes of solidarity from here, spent much of his time in the SWP waffling on about the 'macho-elitism' of the old squads and also of a hands on approach to UAF activity against a bunch of people who were rallying against the increasing sell-out of that campaign... in fact he also slandered them with accusations of machoism too. but he was fitted up on the issue of his expulsion - or, perhaps, hoist by his own petard. he always took the most 'SWP' line possible on gender issues, and pretty ruthlessly pursued slander based on accusations of sexism and 'machoism' against others in arguments.

however rumours about him being clingy (not abusive, but just a bit insecure and possessive) in a relationship with a former party-member girlfriend got out indirectly, not from his ex but from a particularly obnoxious identity politics twat in the Sheffield branch who actually, without his ex ever being involved in the accusations, roused a bunch of the SWSS group to take him to a disciplinary for aggressive 'macho' behaviour, accused him (falsely) of being a sexual predator amongst the SWSS group, and the fight in the nightclub was just the piece de resistance in their attack confirming his generally 'masculine' (and therefore politically incorrect and threatening) persona. there were actually at least 2 other local members involved in that particular bar fight, who were never penalized.

so the hysterical atmosphere he helped to foster, amidst all the anti-macho rhetoric he spilled out over everyone, came him up a cropper when he faced up with a bureaucratically minded little shit-bag who's only pleasure in life is exerting social influence and wielding punishments out through the medium of a tiny irrelevent sect.
 
wrt to the guy who was kicked out for a fight in a nightclub, i know a bit about that. the individual in question wouldn't get many social votes of solidarity from here, spent much of his time in the SWP waffling on about the 'macho-elitism' of the old squads and also of a hands on approach to UAF activity against a bunch of people who were rallying against the increasing sell-out of that campaign... in fact he also slandered them with accusations of machoism too. but he was fitted up on the issue of his expulsion - or, perhaps, hoist by his own petard. he always took the most 'SWP' line possible on gender issues, and pretty ruthlessly pursued slander based on accusations of sexism and 'machoism' against others in arguments.

however rumours about him being clingy (not abusive, but just a bit insecure and possessive) in a relationship with a former party-member girlfriend got out indirectly, not from his ex but from a particularly obnoxious identity politics twat in the Sheffield branch who actually, without his ex ever being involved in the accusations, roused a bunch of the SWSS group to take him to a disciplinary for aggressive 'macho' behaviour, accused him (falsely) of being a sexual predator amongst the SWSS group, and the fight in the nightclub was just the piece de resistance in their attack confirming his generally 'masculine' (and therefore politically incorrect and threatening) persona. there were actually at least 2 other local members involved in that particular bar fight, who were never penalized.

so the hysterical atmosphere he helped to foster, amidst all the anti-macho rhetoric he spilled out over everyone, came him up a cropper when he faced up with a bureaucratically minded little shit-bag who's only pleasure in life is exerting social influence and wielding punishments out through the medium of a tiny irrelevent sect.
The SWP sounds much more interesting now than it was in my day :(.
 
Back
Top Bottom