SWP expulsions and squabbles

[mk12]

Someone needs to update the British Trotskyist family tree.

 

[Random]

Why on earth is that relevant you utter loon?

Cut that out ffs.

 

[sihhi]

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.

I can understand that because many, as butchers pointed out, are the older end of student masters or postgraduate or of that mindset and Rees must have behaved - in a similar way but on a smaller scale - to how he behaved to mk12 as he was being isolated then expelled for posting completely harmlessly on this very forum!

From the earlier link:

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.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I can understand that because many, as butchers pointed out, are the older end of student masters or postgraduate or of that mindset and Rees must have behaved - in a similar way but on a smaller scale - to how he behaved to mk12 as he was being isolated then expelled for posting completely harmlessly on this very forum!

Rees seems to have made a point of playing the "hard leader" in practice, and he churned out most of the arguments for "interventionist leadership" in theory. So not only did he make a significant number of personal enemies amongst ex-SWP members, the people who are rebelling against all that in the SWP are profoundly hostile to him. As he seems to be incapable of performing any kind of mea culpa, it's very hard to see how he could win them over.

If Counterfire had any sense, they'd be trumpeting their current "openness" and putting out some reflective commentary about how much they've learned from their mistakes in the SWP. But they are too arrogant, even when it's the self-interested thing to do.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Cut that out ffs.

It's irritating though - in his enthusiasm to defend the SWP he's completely oblivious to the fact that I wasn't having a dig (it was their meeting so they had every right to pack it out) - I was explaining how although it might not look always that way the SWP did have a bigger membership. It's what he always does - don't bother understanding what's being said - just assume everything's a conspiracy against the SWP and go on the defensive. It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.

 

[laptop]

Sorry, I should have said "arrest the BNP." Not sure how that'd work

Well, that's at least half of how the Brick Lane fascist paper sales stopped. A week or two after Red Action (wasn't it?) piled into the BNP/NF crowd, the police put an Inspector of South Asian origin in charge, with a "fuck it, enough already" policy.

They nicked all the fascists off the District Line at Mile End.

When I the Inspector knocked on my door the following week I asked on what grounds they'd held them. "We lost the paperwork for the afternoon."

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.

Please just stop responding to him on this thread.

 

[butchersapron]

The 'more i could have said' stuff from seymour starts:

This is the first in a series of posts where I explain the crisis in the party from my own perspective. Necessarily, it's a highly personal and therefore partial take. But I have to put it into words - a lot of words - and hope some of it will be useful. And then, on to other things.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The 'more i could have said' stuff from seymour starts:

I was expecting something a bit more juicy than that tbh, nothing in there we don't already know really is there?

 

[butchersapron]

I was expecting something a bit more juicy than that tbh, nothing in there we don't already know really is there?

It's not going to be an expose as such i think - although it's clearly leading to a meeting with people who did know, and who knew well before the 5th december - and who knew in more detail. I think there's plenty more to come.

 

[sihhi]

I was expecting something a bit more juicy than that tbh, nothing in there we don't already know really is there?

He's not going to go into details of the case because the CC that are still in control of the party will say "that's the ISN game all along exploiting a woman and bringing up salacious details just to form a new syriza".

 

[sihhi]

The 'more i could have said' stuff from seymour starts:

Worth examining the full list he gives in a comment earlier:

1) 2011 conference lied to, told nothing of the real nature of the allegations;

2) party members not allowed to discuss the issues in aggregates before 2013 conference, with 'confidentiality' used as the
excuse;

3) a legitimate faction including W prevented from being formed before conference;

4) four party members with known concerns expelled on spurious grounds without any investigation or even preliminary interview in the run up to conference;

5) W prevented from speaking at conference;

6) Party Notes and CC falsely claiming after conference that the party had voted never to discuss it any more;

7) CC members telling people at report-backs and aggregates that they had to defend the line or leave the party;

8) the CC imposing, and gaining NC approval for, an arbitrary unconstitutional deadline for branch motions for a special conference;

9) the CC using party publications and Party Notes to slander the opposition, with no right of reply.

10) the CC imposing, when forced to accept a special conference, a curtailed debating period of one month (the norm is three months).

11) the CC imposing, at district aggregates (where members are elected to go to conference), bizarre debating procedures allowing the faction only six minutes to speak with no reply, while up to two CC speakers take as long as they need and get a right of reply.

12) the CC stacking aggregates with 'the living dead' (members hitherto totally unknown to anyone in local branches) to get a bare majority sufficient to deny any faction members in that area the right to go to conference. This meant that while the faction was as big as, if not bigger than, the CC's not-a-faction, it represented less than 20% of delegates. They ensured at at conference, there would be no real debate: the idea was to numerically 'smash' the opposition.


There's more one could say, but the point is this pathetic shower ducked a debate from the very beginning, because they had something to hide.

The key point is there - something to hide, why expel the 4 if all is appropriate and has been handled appropriately?

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's irritating though - in his enthusiasm to defend the SWP he's completely oblivious to the fact that I wasn't having a dig (it was their meeting so they had every right to pack it out) - I was explaining how although it might not look always that way the SWP did have a bigger membership. It's what he always does - don't bother understanding what's being said - just assume everything's a conspiracy against the SWP and go on the defensive. It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.

it is irritating though, that you only think people are trying to defend the SWP, when in actual fact they are pointing out how you are undermining your own criticisms of the SWP, by talking about a practice which is common to every political organisation/grouping, and pretending it's something peculiar to the SWP. Why use the term packing out? It wasn't essential to your point.

 

[butchersapron]

Worth examining the full list he gives in a comment earlier:




The key point is there - something to hide, why expel the 4 if all is appropriate and has been handled appropriately?

Yes - why thepanicky stuff? Why the over the top reaction? Why such aggression otherwise? Because they knew the rock had been lifted - or at least someone had started to pick it up. More rocks will be lifted very soon i feel.

 

[Random]

It's irritating though - in his enthusiasm to defend the SWP he's completely oblivious to the fact that I wasn't having a dig (it was their meeting so they had every right to pack it out) - I was explaining how although it might not look always that way the SWP did have a bigger membership. It's what he always does - don't bother understanding what's being said - just assume everything's a conspiracy against the SWP and go on the defensive. It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.

I'm not saying take him seriously, I'm saying leave out the abuse.

 

[sihhi]

Yes - why thepanicky stuff? Why the over the top reaction? Why such aggression otherwise? Because they knew the rock had been lifted - or at least someone had started to pick it up. More rocks will be lifted very soon i feel.

Harsh Rees-like counter-responses right now:

SocialistDawn • 3 hours ago : Certain members of the party haven't gotten their own way and are resigning. Well boo-hoo. Out of curiosity Richard, how many paper sales have you done? How active are you within your branch? You seem to assume that the walkout of you and 71 others will be a great loss to the party. Well, the 71 others yes perhaps they will be a loss to the party but your walking out will not damage the party. You have not shown "restraint" when discussing the SWP, you do not seem to understand the basic principles of Democratic Centralism (critical to the party's and class's success) and you do not contribute to the party in a meaningful way.

Seymour explains halting the International Socialism blog was necessary to bring the thing to special conference, and get a unified vote
there:

We made an agreement with the wider IDOOP faction that we would suspend blogging. That was the price of achieving a unified faction. I certainly think it was mistaken of IDOOP leaders to think that stopping the blogging would help. It actually ceded an important advantage and counterweight to the CC's control of the apparatus. Nonetheless, writing an article after that agreement would probably have resulted in a split in the faction, and that wouldn't have been productive.
In the end, I don't think most IDOOP members did fall for divide and rule tactics. A minority did, but I also noticed the eye rolling contempt that IDOOP documents expressed for the attempt to scapegoat myself and others for this crisis. The problem was not that, as such. Rather, I think IDOOP leaders underestimated their own potential strength; they still do.

Who were the IDOOP leaders in full? Richard Seymour, China Mieville, Mike Gonzalez, Megan Trudell, Pat Stack???

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry, I should have said "arrest the BNP." Not sure how that'd work

Coppers arresting people who share their basic beliefs? Perish the thought!!!

 

[SpineyNorman]

it is irritating though, that you only think people are trying to defend the SWP, when in actual fact they are pointing out how you are undermining your own criticisms of the SWP, by talking about a practice which is common to every political organisation/grouping, and pretending it's something peculiar to the SWP. Why use the term packing out? It wasn't essential to your point.

1) I wasn't making a criticism of the SWP and you're making my point for me by claiming I was- again your assumption that anyone talking about the SWP must be part of a conspiracy against the SWP leads you to not engage with what's actually being said - this is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you, it's pointless because you respond to what's being said in your head rather than on the board.

2) Whether that 'practice' is unique to them is irrelevant (as it happens me and a couple of others from the SP went but we didn't encourage people to go or not to go but yes, all groups encourage members to go to important meetings - who has denied that?)

3) It was central to my point because I was talking about how their membership is bigger it normally appears to be and didn't know those additional members existed until I saw packing out the meeting (they may well have packed it out of their own volition rather than being 'mobilised' for it - it was Terry Eagleton on 'Why Marx was Right' - an SWP meeting and a pretty good one at that).

4) That's the last response you're going to get from me because we'll end up disrupting the thread and spoiling it for everyone else.

 

[butchersapron]

Harsh Rees-like counter-responses right now:

<few snips>

you do not seem to understand the basic principles of Democratic Centralism (critical to the party's and class's success)

He should be able to bat away the above by marxsplaining what this attitude has produced today.

Who want's to respond to junior trots shouting? It has to be part of their response for the next period if they're going anywhere though.

 

[butchersapron]

there:



Who were the IDOOP leaders in full? Richard Seymour, China Mieville, Mike Gonzalez, Megan Trudell, Pat Stack???

Not sure CM did a thing really, just accepted it and put his name to the wheel. Stack and Birchall - not convinced they were there for the right reasons myself.

 

[SpineyNorman]

marxsplaining

 

[SpineyNorman]

He's not going to go into details of the case because the CC that are still in control of the party will say "that's the ISN game all along exploiting a woman and bringing up salacious details just to form a new syriza".

Yeah I get that, thought there might be more about the cover-up and the like though. Maybe he's saving that stuff - serialising it will mean more blog hits after all.

 

[TremulousTetra]

3) It was central to my point because I was talking about how their membership is bigger it normally appears to be and didn't know those additional members existed until I saw packing out the meeting (they may well have packed it out of their own volition rather than being 'mobilised' for it - it was Terry Eagleton on 'Why Marx was Right' - an SWP meeting and a pretty good one at that).

and my point is the SWP do pack out meetings, as does everybody else, but I only see the term used on here with reference to the SWP. If that is not true, point to an example of it being used with reference to other organisations...
Secondly, that in my opinion, organisations should mobilise as many people as possible to meetings they care about. Why the bloody hell would you not try to win a vote you were interested in the outcome of? I am not defending the SWP, I am questioning a crazy nonsensical notion.

4) That's the last response you're going to get from me because we'll end up disrupting the thread and spoiling it for everyone else.

don't be so bloody precious, it's a chit chat board.

 

[sihhi]

He should be able to bat away the above by marxsplaining what this attitude has produced today.

Who want's to respond to junior trots shouting? It has to be part of their response for the next period if they're going anywhere though.

Analysis from last week's Socialist Worker:

"We need to fight where we are strong— and fighting oppression makes our side stronger. Socialists oppose sexism wherever it is directed. Any form of oppression can be used by our rulers to divide us. Russian revolutionary Lenin argued that a socialist should be a “tribune of the people, who is able to react to any manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects”."

Fellow comrade is "questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about... sexual relationships... she hasn’t been told what evidence was presented against her by Comrade Delta... she was being interrogated and felt they were trying to catch her out in order to make her out to be a liar. She did not accept the line of questioning, saying ‘they think I’m a slut who asked for it’. Rita, a comrade who is experienced in working with rape victims and was supporting her in the questioning – she had to actually go back into the room and have a go at the DC for their inappropriate questions.
Her treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. No one on the CC has ever contacted her voluntarily, not even to tell her that Comrade Delta was standing down, and she feels she’s been treated as this non-person. The disgusting lies and gossip going round about her has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better... so bad that the CC received two formal complaints from comrades, and a formal complaint has been lodged with the disputes committee. Recently the complainant wanted to attend a meeting and tried to talk to a local member. He told her that it wasn’t appropriate for him to speak to her and he walked away... if you have a serious allegation to bring against a leading member, don’t bother because you’ll be victimised for doing so? ... a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her... her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?"

 

[butchersapron]

Beneath the rock, the sewer?

 

[xslavearcx]

makes you sick... whats the second part from ?

 

[SpackleFrog]

So I'm just interested, your organisation, the Socialist party, encouraged its members not to go to the said meeting?

Don't be deliberately thick.

 

[butchersapron]

That's the DC transcript from the first SWP conference.

 

[xslavearcx]

cheers butchersapron

 

[DrRingDing]

"The nightmare scenario is an attack piece by Laurie Penny."

http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-i.html