Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

"I also want to register my gratitude to those in the International Socialist tendency who supported the fight" Ah. London branch of the ISO anyone?

The ISO aren't in the IST, so probably not a direct reference to them. However, I would certainly expect the ISO to show the benevolent side of its countenance to this new group. Which should be something you'd welcome - after all the ISO are essentially rather orthodox Cliffites and in so far as they influence the new group it will be an attempt to stop them ranging too far ideologically.

It will be interesting to see how the split effects the rest of the IST however.
 
Throughout all this the Seymour lot have had a funny relationship with Counterfire. The public utterances seemed to dwell on Rees and German's alleged bad faith for not having broken with the prof's model of dem cen earlier. And obviously so long as Seymour was at least pretending to want to stay he couldn't say nice things about them. But in all honesty don't they match his ideas pretty closely? They shared his enthuasiasm for Syriza as a 'new formation' and even a 'left centrism'. They are at least open to his identity politics tendencies. And all the precariat stuff is right up his alley. Can't be that long before they come to some sort of accommodation?
Absolutely not. On the key issue - which you tends to always slide away from, in your own head as well as in posts - Counterfire are seen as even more wedded to top-down bureaucratic 'leadership'.
 
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.
it's up to you, might be worth googling, "the social model of disability", and a writer called Vic Finklestein
 
yep. as it should be.
I certainly dont agree with that. But for the first time I'm feeling less than confident that they will find a way out if this. And that's not cause SEYMOUR! has done one, that's a good thing. But I was hopeful the special conf would do more tangibly to find ways to resist the growing media campaign. Right now you'd struggle to see how this can be turned around. Maybe this dc reform body will provide sone answers but...
 
Absolutely not. On the key issue - which you tends to always slide away from, in your own head as well as in posts - Counterfire are seen as even more wedded to top-down bureaucratic 'leadership'.

Quite apart from anything else, they seem to have brought in Andy Wilson's little crew straight away and Wilson was essentially expelled from the SWP in the first place for saying that John Rees had no clothes.
 
a)TUSC needs anyone it can lay its hands on
b)The SP case (Hedley) will be used in excatly the same way to criticise the far left

I'd say that the issue that causes the SWP serious difficulty in collaborating with others is less likely to be TUSC and more the ability of union bureaucracies to smear union left bodies over their recent behaviour. As for the other allegations you mention, there will certainly be people using them to try to damage the socialist left, but that damage will only stick if the SP botches the issue.
 
"I also want to register my gratitude to those in the International Socialist tendency who supported the fight" Ah. London branch of the ISO anyone?
I believe this to be more of an Irish reference, but the ISO are certainly going to keep in touch with those leaving the SWP, as well as offer some of them the opportunity to speak and to publish in the USA.
 
I certainly dont agree with that. But for the first time I'm feeling less than confident that they will find a way out if this. And that's not cause SEYMOUR! has done one, that's a good thing. But I was hopeful the special conf would do more tangibly to find ways to resist the growing media campaign. Right now you'd struggle to see how this can be turned around. Maybe this dc reform body will provide sone answers but...
the death of the SWP (if that's what this is to be) is by it's own hand. fuck 'em.
 
I just posted an event which will no doubt be of interest to SWP watchers. Two members of AMM and two of the original 'facebook four' are speaking, alongside an eclectic variety of others.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/sat-11th-may-2013-spring-conference-manchester-m2-5ns.307477/

and ask fundamental questions pertinent to all on the radical left. As an essential human construct, what is art and culture?

Good to see that the priorties facing the working class are built around the availability of speakers
 
I believe this to be more of an Irish reference, but the ISO are certainly going to keep in touch with those leaving the SWP, as well as offer some of them the opportunity to speak and to publish in the USA.
And not forgetting the Serbian section.

I'm sure the ISO will be doing just that. Arguably folks like Sharon Smith have already gone down the same road as RS on identity politics so there may be a meeting of minds.
 
A mercifully brief reading of the practicalities of degeneration (or some other pompus title):

The other thing that happened in the 90s was that then-National Secretary of the SWP Chris Bambery started splitting the branches. The logic was impeccable, if the 90s were like the 1930s in slow motion, then we must organize like the Communist Parties did in the 1930s (in slow motion?). Of course the CPs were mass parties with deep roots inside the working classes of their countries. And nobody asked if maybe the CP model of organizing after the parties were fully subordinate to Stalin’s Moscow might not be more than a bit problematic. But, in either case, making branches tiny made them more reliant upon the full-timers for material support and made members even more isolated from each other. This tendency was deepened when branches were dissolved in their entirety at the beginning of the new decade in order to “break” the conservatism of the membership and push them into the movements. Now the only organized, active element within the party was the apparatus. The leadership had, in a Brechtian turn, dissolved an unworthy membership.

As I said, no one can escape history, not even Tony Cliff. Cliff understood that the 80s had made the party conservative and that it needed to be shaken up. But the effects of conservatism were not experienced solely by the membership and were, arguably, felt more acutely by the party machine. That distortionn explains why the cure for conservatism was directed solely at the membership. It was they who were the problem. The Party by now was the machine, what was needed was a better membership. Of course, we now see precisely what that means. And there’s no use pretending that this was a process that was resisted all along the line by the membership. Certainly there were individuals who were unlucky enough to attrack the tender mercies of the full-timers and the CC. I remember John Rees gleefully telling us how he had expelled some workers who were contemptuous of him. But the majority of old time cadre were committed to the IS tradition and to the party. They internalized this degeneration and outlook, having long since lost any memory of a different kind of organization in a different kind of context. It’s a bit like the Stockholm Syndrome or the way in which the oppressed internalize their own oppression
 
Thanks for noticing :)

Maybe it's just cause I'm having a bad morning but having read that Penny piece I'm actually more depressed about all this than at any time. There is a real possibility here that the swp image will be too tarnished to recover from this or that being on the defensive about it saps their energy here on out. Which is doubly depressing cause none of the splits are going to reclaim the tradition or anything so noble, they're all headed into the swamp. I've been open enough about who I've supported throughout all this but the unfortunate fact is this is going to make life very difficult for every hard working swp activist here on out. I never minded getting abuse at paper sales about the politics but how much can people take of being constantly accused of being complicit in the abuse of teenage women?!

Is this really only sinking in now?

A clear victory for the opposition, with an attendant fanfare about how all things right and proper had been fought for and all wrongs corrected, was in my view the only real chance the SWP had to recover. To borrow a phrase from PR pricks, that's the only thing that would have let them change the narrative. That's what the House of Lords understood and you didn't. That's why the more clear sighted SWP first people were in the opposition.

As it is, they will face years of goading about this from media types, from sectarians, from feminists, from union bureaucrats, from just about every opponent in just about every field. It will be used over and over again to undermine them, both by people who are genuinely outraged and by people with an axe to grind. Meanwhile, the campuses are going to have most of their former SWSS members still there and still hostile and Google helpfully adds the word "rape" automatically when you type in SWP.

After the inevitable short term burst of "outward looking" hyperactivism, demoralisation is going to set in. And there will still be a sullen, disgruntled, minority in there, more splits, more resignations, more people just walking away.

If you are really worried about your "tradition", your best bet would be to hope that the new group falls firmly under ISO tutelage. That's how you are most likely to end up with a viable group of a not wildly different sort to the SWP.
 
Absolutely not. On the key issue - which you tends to always slide away from, in your own head as well as in posts - Counterfire are seen as even more wedded to top-down bureaucratic 'leadership'.
But how much of that is down to how Rees and German personally behaved within the cc of the swp vs how Counterfire operates now? I don't know anything about their internal regime but they certainly make a great show of their openness and ability to engage with (some might say adapt to) people to their right which is a huge part of the SEYMOUR! argument with the cc about feminists and others.
 
Another post about SWP's paranoia opposition to "creeping feminism":

http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/swp-and-their-fear-of-feminism


‘The IS (precursor to the SWP) ostensibly committed to learning from workers’ struggles, the initiator of rank and file groups, opposed to bureaucracy in the labour movement, baulked at extending these ideas into the wider issues of everyday life or at applying them within their own organisation’.

The SWP still wallows in this limited and simplistic dogma. I think the SWP are afraid of feminism precisely because it’s alternative power structure, an alternative source of organisational strength, this will inevitably undermine the culture of political obedience in the SWP which they have been careful to impose on the membership for decades. It’s not creeping feminism what has created the woes in the SWP, it’s a corrupt political culture, where powerful men are/were excused for sexual exploitation and violence towards women.

The SWP leadership and loyalists may indulge in distracting people from the bleeding obvious but the reality is about abuse of power and of power dynamics between men and women (let’s throw in some understanding of patriarchy too). If you stifle debate within your organisation and only use a top-down method of education then isn’t it any wonder sexism, exploitation, violence and unequal relationships between men and women exist within the SWP. And let’s be clear this isn’t an internal matter for the SWP this has impacted on the whole of the Left.
 
But how much of that is down to how Rees and German personally behaved within the cc of the swp vs how Counterfire operates now?

The core point there is that the IS people simply aren't interested in finding out how Rees and German operate now as long as the deposed royals maintain that they operated correctly when they were running the SWP.

And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do.
 
The core point there is that the IS people simply aren't interested in finding out how Rees and German operate now as long as the deposed royals maintain that they operated correctly when they were running the SWP.

And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do.

Who is the IS people?
 
The core point there is that the IS people simply aren't interested in finding out how Rees and German operate now as long as the deposed royals maintain that they operated correctly when they were running the SWP.

And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do.
Noticeable their seeming total reliance on donations and luvvy largesse. Doesn't exactly suggest a broad committed group.
 
Really?

"Association of Musical Marxists"

Seeing the question "As an essential human construct, what is art and culture?" as a "fundamental question pertinent to all on the radical left"

it's not pretty vital to think about these things?
 
"And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do."

The ex-members the ISN is recruiting or Counterfire is recruiting?

The ISN. They've specifically appealed to ex-members to join, and facebook has a load of them doing just that. Mostly people who really, really, really don't like Rees.
 
Back
Top Bottom