SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

The other side of this is the use of disabled as a comment on society rather than the person; i.e. it is the way society is organised that disables, therefore it is not the individuals who are essentially disabled but society which is disabling.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

The other side of this is the use of disabled as a comment on society rather than the person; i.e. it is the way society is organised that disables, therefore it is not the individuals who are essentially disabled but society which is disabling.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Yup, the social model of disability. I didn't want to get into that because it's kind of an involved subject all on it's own.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

I think what VP's talking about is very different from the weird liberal 'nobody is vulnerable and the only reason some people can't do things others can is they say they cant'. That leads to all kinds of weird shit, like for example claiming someone was engaged in 'victim culture' because when she asked them to stand up so she could hear her the person said I can't because I'm disabled. I'm assuming the implication is that if that word hadn't been used the person's legs might have been miraculously cured. It's only one step away from 'get on yer bike' IMO.

But from my understanding there's a bit of a debate among more sensible people over this - in the social model the term 'disabled people' is used to emphasise that society disables them in various ways, and on the other hand there's 'people with disabilities' which emphasises that they're people first and foremost but just happen to have impairments of various kinds. I think most people would say either is acceptable because they don't imply an undifferentiated homogenous group in the same way as 'the disabled' does.

 

[barney_pig]

Agree with this, they probably didn't know.

The issue being, they didn't care, they just did what they were told.

 

[SpackleFrog]

The issue being, they didn't care, they just did what they were told.

No, some of them may not even be aware they're still counted on membership lists.

 

[barney_pig]

No, some of them may not even be aware they're still counted on membership lists.

Is there any evidence that some of the signatories were fabricated?

 

[xslavearcx]

could workers girder not do some investigative journalism into this question. and if it turns out they were active signatories could they please print photos and address details of 'teachers in your area that signed that document'. ta

 

[Louis MacNeice]

could workers girder not do some investigative journalism into this question. and if it turns out they were active signatories could they please print photos and address details of 'teachers in your area that signed that document'. ta

Given this latest statement from PD this is highly unlikely:

SWP - join us on the road to a workers world!

PD and the international working class welcomes the signs of a healthy new beginning for the SWP.

Perhaps as it stands fore square with Martin Smith in his rejection of bourgeois morality, and shows the door to the degenerate elements rallying behind the reactionary liberal banner of 'the personal is political', the SWP can make itself fit for the task of proletarian revolution?

Only time will tell, but PD holds itself ready to enter into serious negotiations with those best elements who have been tested by the fire and not found themselves wanting.

We are ready, willing and able to help you develop the revolutionary consciousness that the international proletariat are crying out for. But be warned failure to take your responsibilities seriously, will see you condemned to slide back into the counter revolutionary swamp from which you have so recently emerged.

The personal isn't political!
Down with bourgeois morality!​

​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

maybe a rival faction?

 

[emanymton]

Is there any evidence that some of the signatories were fabricated?

It is irrelevant really, what mattered where the votes at the aggregates, and while they may have a dragged some inactive members out for them they could hardly pack them with non members.

Incidentally party notes is claiming over 1000 members attended the aggregates which was the most 'for years'

 

[butchersapron]

It is irrelevant really, what mattered where the votes at the aggregates, and while they may have a dragged some inactive members out for them they could hardly pack them with non members.

Incidentally party notes is claiming over 1000 members attended the aggregates which was the most 'for years'

The could certainly pack them with non-member members. You slapped yourself out of your lenin august 1914 torpor yet - it couldn't have happened! It didn't happen!

 

[emanymton]

The could certainly pack them with non-member members. You slapped yourself out of your lenin august 1914 torpor yet - it couldn't have happened! It didn't happen!

Sorry non-member members? You mean ones not paying subs? I think they did, but these people still have to identify with the SWP in some way in order to turn out to defend it, as they would see it.

As for my 1914 torpor, yeah I am starting to, I can even see the chains of logic they would use to defend themselves over the Sheffield case.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Incidentally party notes is claiming over 1000 members attended the aggregates which was the most 'for years'

Which is actually pretty revealing. IIRC, Rees or one of his supporters pointed out that there were only about 800 members who participated in pre-conference discussions and the like a couple of years ago. Now, with the survival of the org at stake and a full court press to get the inactive out they hit 1,000.

 

[killer b]

And vote for its destruction.

 

[emanymton]

Which is actually pretty revealing. IIRC, Rees or one of his supporters pointed out that there were only about 800 members who participated in pre-conference discussions and the like a couple of years ago. Now, with the survival of the org at stake and a full court press to get the inactive out they hit 1,000.

When you consider that the two faction statements only got about 500 names each, although I think there were a fare number of independents as well. And allowing for the members who could not make the aggregates I think we can put the number of people who identify as SWP members at about 1,300, certainly less than 1,500. How many has the SP got?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

How many has the SP got?

Last public membership claim was 2,000. I don't live in England, so can't really say how accurate that is. There will, presumably, be a layer of complete inactive, semi-active, etc in there because there always is in any organisation over a certain size.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There was an article in the Times today covering the special conference. Nothing in it that would be news to anyone here, except that there were reporters outside the conference. They were refused entry to the Town Hall on the basis that it was private property and delegates, unsurprisingly, were under strict orders not to talk to the journalists outside.

 

[barney_pig]

A bizarre aside: andy Newman quoting kinnock's 1985 conference speech with approval, as an example of incisive left wing leadership ( or something)

 

[Fedayn]

Jen Izaakson ‏@Izaakson
I've just resigned from the #SWP.

 

[Fedayn]

And there's more....... Resignations

 

[butchersapron]

70 odd there - seymour and mielville included.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Thats the Platform gone then - exactly what the Central Rapist's Committee wanted.

 

[killer b]

they can now preside over a party of empty chairs. whoo!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

They've obviously decided that they need to set up some form of organisation to attract those who have already gone and those who will be going over the next few months.

 

[discokermit]

Thats the Platform gone then - exactly what the Central Rapist's Committee wanted.

what will the idoop ditherers do?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Last public membership claim was 2,000. I don't live in England, so can't really say how accurate that is. There will, presumably, be a layer of complete inactive, semi-active, etc in there because there always is in any organisation over a certain size.

I reckon that's not far off right to be honest - probably about 2,000 subs paying members, though obviously there's some in that number who aren't especially active. I know we check our branch membership list once a year and take anyone off who hasn't been involved or paid subs over the year unless there's some kind of unusual circumstance that leads us to believe they'll be back.

I'm pretty sure I'm still counted among the SWP membership, despite sending a resignation to the centre. Otherwise I wouldn't still be getting the internal bulletins. That said I think before this shitstorm, even taking into account the questionable membership figures, the SWP were definitely still a fair bit bigger than us. I hadn't realised just how many members they had round here until they packed out a meeting a bit back. There's a section of the membership that you don't generally see at the usual events but who can be mobilised when they really need it and I think that's been the real difference.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Branch breakdown of the initial signatories:


Bradford
Brent and Harrow
Brighton 5
Bristol East
Bristol North 4
Bristol South
Brixton 4
Camden
Canterbury 2
Cardiff 2
Edinburgh 4
Euston 4
Hackney East 2
Hastings
Hornsey and Wood Green
Islington
Lancaster
Leeds Central 3
Leicester
Liverpool 5
LSE
Manchester Central 2
Newcastle
Norwich
Oxford 5
Portsmouth 3
Sheffield 2
Sheffield North 3
Sheffield South
Tottenham 2
Walthamstow
Wandsworth 2
York 3

The various lists that have been published or leaked during this dispute really shows the impact of the internet on factional warfare. Not simply the fact that they've all been leaked, but the way in which alignments fail to map onto geographical areas in the way they would once have done. It's as easy for people in Edinburgh to communicate with others in Portsmouth as it is for them to argue with people in Glasgow.

 

[killer b]

. There's a section of the membership that you don't generally see at the usual events but who can be mobilised when they really need it and I think that's been the real difference.

who are these members who aren't engaged enough to be involved with regular campaigns, but are loyal enough to side with the rape apologists without question? It doesn't make sense.

 

[discokermit]

who are these members who aren't engaged enough to be involved with regular campaigns, but are loyal enough to side with the rape apologists without question? It doesn't make sense.

they're nutters.

 

[sihhi]

From Party Notes 11 Mar 2013:

"The IDOOP faction that was set up before the conference has now dissolved.
As the CC made clear at conference, if comrades in the former faction accept the decisions of the conference then they can continue to play a full and equal part in the organisation on the same basis as everyone else.
However, continuing factionalism will be ruinous for the SWP and is not acceptable. We can’t continue with the attacks on the party and its members on blogs and Facebook and Twitter.
The conference elected four people to the body mentioned in section seven of the CC motion. This will look at the Disputes Committee procedures and suggest changes where necessary.
There are also important debates we need to have in our publications and meetings, as section ten of the motion says.
The party has been through an intense period of internal debate. It is now crucial we turn outwards and ensure that the party is at the centre of the resistance.
This needs to be the main theme of the conference report-backs this week. Ring the national office to talk about speakers."