Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Interesting little diversion via Wiki, ta: hadn't realised 'Bolsheviks' came originally from disagreement between Lenin and Martov. Martov's supporters were minority and called "Mensheviks" from меньшинство (men'shinstvo, "minority"), whereas Lenin's were known as "Bolsheviks", from bol'shinstvo ("majority").



You wouldn't call SWP a Menshevik party then :)



Yes I know you all know this. I'm posting it for my benefit.

It's one of those good old "irony of history" things we all love so much that although all revolutionery socialists today automatically spit in the metaphorical political contempt spittoon whenever the name "Menshevik" is mentioned, if we look at what actually happened in Russia since 1917, an objective assessment could be argued to conclude that Lenin and Trotsky pinning all their hopes on the rescue of the "historically premature" worker and peasant revolution in economically and socially backward Russia by the expected German socialist revolution, turned out to be a tad optimistic. The consequence of the failure of the wider German and European revolutionery wave from 1917 until the early 1920's (and the eventual emergeance of fascism as a counterweight to socialist revolution), of course produced Stalinism in the USSR, and all the consequent death and oppression , and later Stalinist-model dictatorships across the world. Ending up of course in the eventual full capitalist restoration in the USSR and eastern Bloc, and China well on that path too.

The Menshevik argument was that the Russian Czarist empire was simply not ready to sustain a working- class-led socialist revolution, and that the most that could be expected was a bourgeois democratic end to Czarist autocracy. They predicted that to carry out a premature socialist revolution on the social and economic base of Czarist Russia could only end in a need to rule by "Jacobin Terror" by a tiny working class and its political party. So who turned out right ? The optimistic, "let's wing it and hope for rescue by the German socialist revolution before the shit hits the fan" Bolsheviks, or the cautious, much more formally "orthodox Marxist" Mensheviks ? I have extreme doubt that there actually was a "bourgeois democratic" option available as a counterpose to a continuation of Czarist autocracy ,as Bourgeois critics of the Bolshevik revolution or "coup" usually suggest. Nevertheless, given the colossal human disaster that was Stalinism, The fact today of a complete bourgeois capitalist restoration in Russia and the Eastern bloc countroes, after all that blood spilt, and the negative impact on the perception of Socialism that Stalinism still represents on a world historical scale, and perhaps a little more nuanced understanding of the "Menshevik" position by radical Lefties might be in order nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I would have sided with the Bolshevik position in 1917 too - hoping for the Germans to hurry up and carry out their "historical destiny". But then, I like Lenin, would have been harbouring serious, fatal, illusions in the German Social Democracy of the time. The revolutionery Left today seems to be so stuck in the ideological dogma built up since 1917 that it is generally incapable of grasping that the Bolshevik high risk strategy actually resoundingly FAILED. The October 1917 workers and peasants revolution wasn't the END of the process, and a conclusiove refutation of the Menshevik positition....it was only the beginning - and the final outcome was TOTAL DISASTER and eventual full capitalist restoration ! Trotsky remained friendly with the Menshevik leader , Martov, a sign perhaps that he didn't view the Mensheviks as the dastardly villains that later Stalinist historical revision chooses to paint them.

I'm not suggesting any contemporary historical resonance of the Menshevik/Bolshevik debate in today's world capitalist crisis, as the world generally, and the West particularly is completely economically and socially "mature" for a genuine working-class socialist revolution, and has been for a long, long time. The point, though,is to analyse each historical opportunity anew, in the light of current knowledge, not to be trapped in the semi religious, 1917 Revolution obsessed, dogmas which still dominate the thinking of most of the "marxist" radical Left today.
 
Workers Power have issued a statement

http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2013/03/swp-after-the-conference-the-struggle-must-continue/

The Workers Power ten-point manifesto makes a call for:




In the case of rape or sexual harassment - that would mean expulsion at the very least, it seems the details would probably have to be discussed at Conference which might not necessarily work well, since the National Committee of around 50 is close to and has former members as the Central Committee.




No6 is about separating investigation from weighing up/judgement. A control commission examining the behaviour of the CC is a solid idea - trying to separate out the concentration of power in the CC.
Although if it is to have weight people shouldn't interchange from one to the other - they have to be serious and distinct not really socialising or being mates with one another as far as possible.



No7 is more obvious. But it means going back against the decision Cliff took in the 1980s about Women's Voice and Flame. Is this kind of thing likely?

Just sent a snitty e-mail to Workers' Power about the language of No7, specifically "...the disabled etc". What's it coming to when even Trots use essentialist labels?
 
I seriously hope that this bullshit backfires on Callinicos in the context of his academic employment.

Why/How should it? I see it that as even more unlikely than a return to Flame.

The people who have started resigning are the IDOOP faction, it looks like the SWP will remain with its resources and funds.

A public resignation letter:


“The SWP is not a safe place for women. The revelations that appeared in Saturday’s Guardian indicate that repeatedly where women have come forward to report rapes by senior party members, their experience has been one of being horrifically mistreated. ... I do not believe that any woman can now have confidence in bringing a similar complaint before the Disputes Committee, and abusive men will know they can get away with these acts. Having appeared as a witness at the DC hearing of the Facebook Four, I can confirm that the Kangaroo Court analogy is more than apt. How can I stay in such an organisation? Who would I ever want to recruit to it?"

"I value much of what I have learned from other SWP members in that time – even in recent years where I have had significant differences with the party’s perspectives, my relationships and discussions with comrades have remained fraternal. However, since December there has been a marked shift in this. I have been personally abused at every branch meeting I have attended in that time, as have other oppositional comrades. Vicious rumours have been spread about me by long-standing party members in an attempt to personally discredit me. I have been physically threatened. All of this because I stood in solidarity, first with the victims of rape and sexual harassment (who party members have happily lied about), and secondly with four comrades who were expelled on a trumped-up charge shortly before conference for their attempts to stop the CC from damaging the SWP in this way. This is not the behaviour of a revolutionary party, it is the behaviour of a cult. I have no intention of remaining in a cult.
Andy Lawson, Hackney East (a creeping feminist)"
 
Why/How should it?

Don't think anybody should be rooting for someone to lose their job but.... when i look at that list of 500 supporters of the CC and so many of them are teachers, academics etc, it does seem a bit dodgy that they have no problem with questions to do with relationships that have a few dimensions of unequal power relations going on. You would think being in such professions that such questions would be a no-brainer but obviously not. Such values i dont think are compatable with those kinda professions - i would not be so chuffed if my soon to be teenager daughters teacher was activly espousing justifications for what took place.
 
Don't think anybody should be rooting for someone to lose their job but.... when i look at that list of 500 supporters of the CC and so many of them are teachers, academics etc, it does seem a bit dodgy that they have no problem with questions to do with relationships that have a few dimensions of unequal power relations going on. You would think being in such professions that such questions would be a no-brainer but obviously not. Such values i dont think are compatable with those kinda professions - i would not be so chuffed if my soon to be teenager daughters teacher was activly espousing justifications for what took place.

This is all true, but large parts of society - including teachers as much as anyone else - do victim-blaming or excuse victim-blaming and botched investigations in the present criminal justice system on spurious argument that 'police are friends of all women adult and teenagers now' hence if someone doesn't report within the time slot allowed, they're an idiot and/or probably exaggerating anyway.

What guarantee is there that a replacement will be any better?
 
none whatsoever - im under no illusions that people in such professions harbour such views, its just them being so explicit about it and the fact that such ideas are antithetical to what would be considered good practice/professional ethics thats a bit astounding for me personally. But then again, you would think people imbibed in basic principles of left wing ideology would not come out with stuff like that...
 
The equivalent of having a quiet word with mr Brown about the behaviour of young William.

Which reminds me of the better days of the 5th International........

The Dog Days of the Left Opposition

It was quiet at 1917 Lev Bronstein Close. Not too quiet for Mr Rebel, Cockers’ father sat smoking his pipe reading the Sunday Express in his favourite armchair. But for the most senior junior leader of the tiniest revolutionary party in the world it was too quiet. Cockers was upstairs anxiously looking out of the window, half in hope and half in habit. It was two days ago when he had shared with Ginger his plan to liberate from the 5th International Shares club the money he had faithfully donated each week. He had been falsely advised that there was to be a crisis in world capitalism and that there would be a pre - revolutionary period. In fact the opposite had happened and rather than losing money Cockers was now under the impression that he was in fact owed some money. The money was by chance stashed in the same premises of the Cheadle High Street after school Revo club that Cockers and Ginger attended. Ginger had not turned up and despite Cockers flashing Morse code signals with a mirror across the road to Gingers house there had been no reply.

Cockers put his pen down and set his gaze on two action men, a Transformer, a figure of Sponge Bob Squarepants and a Teenage Mutant turtle. He had initially moved the Barbie doll that Violet Elisabeth had lent him but placed her now in the front row so as not to be accused of sexism. He did not have a burka so he had dressed the doll in a sock with two holes cut with a pair of scissors and had one of the action men’s toy guns in her arms. Standing back so that he had half an eye on the mirror and half to his audience he began to practise the speech he had finished drafting ‘ Comrades’ he said ‘Cheadle High Street is at the cross roads, we can either go forward or back, the choice is between socialism or …….’

Cockers was cut off by a sudden knock on the door and the front bell chimed furiously.

Cockers looked out of the window. For some reason there was Gingers mum, Ginger and Violet Elisabeth. He gasped and muttered…………’between socialism or Barbie –ism’

Mr Rebel had been sitting in the living room smoking his pipe and reading the Daily Mail’s cricket page. He had grabbed a well earnt half an hours rest as Mrs Rebel had dashed out to the shops to the Local VG1 felt shop. “Drat!” he exclaimed “that bloody loopy woman. I wonder what an earth she wants”

He opened the door with a flourish and a smile “Ah good Morning Mrs Ginger and how are you?” Greeted Mr Rebel

“Mr Rebel” she begun in as shrill voice “ I am afraid that from today my son Ginger will not be allowed to play with Cockers. Over the years I have tried to take your son under my wing but frankly this is the last straw.

“Why what has he done?” enquired Mr Rebel

“Mr Rebel, thankfully Ginger decided to share with us an attempt to take the tuck shop money from the Revo club and for your son to try and set up his own Independent revolutionary Youth organisation. He intended not only to take the money but the table tennis bats and the hoop.”

“Really?” said Mr Rebel; sucking on his pipe, which had by now just about given up the ghost “ I’ll have very strong words with him”

Mrs Ginger was not impressed “I think what ever you say will not be enough; he has caused a chasm in the revolutionary vanguard”

“Well I am very sorry to hear that, “said Cockers dad “I will pay for any damage or indeed stop it from his allowance “

“One last word Mr Rebel. The Reverend James P Cannon once pointed out that the true test of a revolutionary is despite the attractions of retreat is to stand firm in the face of the class offensive. You ought to read him especially 'The Struggle for the Proletarian Party'. Your son has failed us all.

“Mmm, isn’t the Reverend now a Cannon? I would never trust a man with a double barrelled name, “ said Mr Rebel “ Anyway I wouldn’t take it that far Mrs Ginger after all boys will be boys.”

And he politely but wearily closed the door.It rang immediately again and he opened it

“Yes?”

“Violet Elisabeth would like her Barbie doll back as well, and says she is going out with Nigel Irritable and Cockers is not to text her again “

What an odd woman Mr Rebel thought.

“Cockers” he shouted up the stairs "Could I have a word please? And please bring down that doll”
 
Don't think anybody should be rooting for someone to lose their job but.... when i look at that list of 500 supporters of the CC and so many of them are teachers, academics etc, it does seem a bit dodgy that they have no problem with questions to do with relationships that have a few dimensions of unequal power relations going on. You would think being in such professions that such questions would be a no-brainer but obviously not. Such values i dont think are compatable with those kinda professions - i would not be so chuffed if my soon to be teenager daughters teacher was activly espousing justifications for what took place.

What would you do if your daughters teacher was a member of the SWP? Just be 'not chuffed'?
 
none whatsoever - im under no illusions that people in such professions harbour such views, its just them being so explicit about it and the fact that such ideas are antithetical to what would be considered good practice/professional ethics thats a bit astounding for me personally. But then again, you would think people imbibed in basic principles of left wing ideology would not come out with stuff like that...

People are also imbibed with all sorts of other ideologies as well as the left-wing ideology - plus there's little engagement beyond what the paper says, no room for debate in the paper etc.

Leading to lunacy:


The SWP now find themselves facing the same allegations that had previously been leveled against Julian Assange. Too many members of the SWP simply went along with the prevailing current peddled by a pro-NATO mass media vis-a-vis Assange, one that refused to defend his right to a fair trial, one that tapped into a fertile reservoire of ‘feminism’ in the universities that was anything but conducive to a fair trial. That was a very serious mistake in my opinion, and I made of point of saying so at the time.
Now the SWP and the SP are both being accused by those same ‘feminists’ (particularly in the universities and colleges of further education) who smeared anyone who wanted to examine the evidence, and the possibility that Assange may indeed have been the victim of a CIA honey-trap. Just because this may be a ploy resorted to by a desperate guilty man, that does not prove a priori that it should not be given credence as one possible explanation of what may have happened between Assange and his accusers.

Now that the SWP and SP are facing the same anti-democratic smear campaigners (including from within their own ranks!), every one of us has to give serious thought as to how we can identify and deal with the genuine offenders while ensuring that innocent people are not victimised, possibly framed by those who are in the pay of British Intelligence or some other intelligence agency.
 
Urm, yeah we all have this happened at the last conference.

Well that was embarrassing. Rereading the thread tells me I did know this but seem to have forgotten it. I am getting fully confused with this right now. Let's bring on the split and see if anyone is worth salvaging from the wreckage.
 
People are also imbibed with all sorts of other ideologies as well as the left-wing ideology - plus there's little engagement beyond what the paper says, no room for debate in the paper etc.

Of course, what i'm meaning is that it would be fair to say that leftie chat, is usually ordered around ideas of being opposed to structural power relations being embedded in society. Thus, one would think an explicit declaration of assenting to something that is manifestly contradictory towards such a set of principles would be problematic.

Yes, the prevailing ideologies of society will influence peoples actions and such actions will be inconsistent with the particular set of leftie chat that they explicitly state directs their life, but then you would think they would be very aware of such contradictions when they express such views as a set of propositions. (or add their signature to something that supports such content)
 
What would you do if your daughters teacher was a member of the SWP? Just be 'not chuffed'?

Never said that being a member of SWP would be problematic; i said that if a person activly espoused views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well,(and clearly apologists for what took place did so), then if someone who was activly stating such views was a teacher of my daughter then yeah it would be a problem.
 
Never said that being a member of SWP would be problematic; i said that if a person activly espoused views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well,(and clearly apologists for what took place did so), then if someone who was activly stating such views was a teacher of my daughter then yeah it would be a problem.

The 500 SWP members on the list you refered , do they espouse 'views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well'?
 
The ones who belong to the teaching profession are versed in what constitutes good practice, child protection etc. Whats gone down with the SWP are antithetical to such ethics and practice where condemnation of such events are derided as 'bourgiouse' (50 plus man - school age person/ position of power within party/new recruit) - think that would meet the criteria of an abuse of a structural pwer relationship" in anybodies book. Adding ones name to explicitly support such proceedings is assenting to the implications of such proceedings - and for a teacher or any professional working with vulnerable people that is seriously problematic.
 
Sorry, should we not say "disabled"?

Suppose you're one of say 100 deaf people gathered together, would you care for someone to refer to you in such a way that your personhood isn't recognised, only the fact that you happen to have a disability?If so, you're welcome to be one of "the disabled", someone acknowledged only by the fact of their disability(s).
Me, as someone who's been subject to physical impairment for more than half my life, I prefer to be acknowledged as a person who happens to have (in my case) physical impairments - i.e. I'm a person, an individual first, who happens to have disabilities that mean that part of my identity is that of a person with disabilities. What they don't mean is that I'm a member of some homogeneous mass of people with impairments who can or should be defined only through reference to our disabilities. That is what referring to us as "the disabled" does. It essentialises who we are down to a single characteristic - disability.
 
Suppose you're one of say 100 deaf people gathered together, would you care for someone to refer to you in such a way that your personhood isn't recognised, only the fact that you happen to have a disability?If so, you're welcome to be one of "the disabled", someone acknowledged only by the fact of their disability(s).
Me, as someone who's been subject to physical impairment for more than half my life, I prefer to be acknowledged as a person who happens to have (in my case) physical impairments - i.e. I'm a person, an individual first, who happens to have disabilities that mean that part of my identity is that of a person with disabilities. What they don't mean is that I'm a member of some homogeneous mass of people with impairments who can or should be defined only through reference to our disabilities. That is what referring to us as "the disabled" does. It essentialises who we are down to a single characteristic - disability.

Fair enough, but is there some other shorthand term I can use?

Have to say I was expecting a different argument - someone I know is very against this term, because she doesn't believe that being blind, deaf or in a wheelchair actually disadvantages anyone. By calling them disabled you are turning them into victims, so she tells me.
 
Agree with this, they probably didn't know.

Most probably wont. But the ones who are teachers and/or the ones who work with vulnerable groups will know fine well that there is a disconnect between what is considered to be good practice in their profession (and the reasons for such practices) and the shoddy state of affairs that has gone down in the SWP.
 
Back
Top Bottom