SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Jean-Luc]

If prejudice prevents an intelligent discussion here on democratic as opposed to Leninist models of organisation, here instead is an extract from the constitution of the IWW which also seeks to avoid a self-perpetuating and controlling executive committee and which also rejects the slate system:

Elections: General Administration

Sec. 3

(a) The General Secretary-Treasurer shall be a member for 3 years, and 18 months in continuous good standing immediately prior to nomination. The General Executive Board shall consist of seven members all of whom have been members for 18 months, and 12 months in continuous good standing, immediately prior to nomination.
In the event that no nominee for General Secretary-Treasurer meeting the 3 year membership requirement can be found, then the 3 year requirement shall be reduced to one of 2 years membership with 18 months continuous good standing prior to nomination.
A person elected to office must remain in continuous good standing until assuming that office or forfeit the right to hold the office.

b) Nominations for General Secretary-Treasurer and members of the General Executive Board shall be made at the General Convention of the IWW or through the mail with nominations closed by the adjournment of the General Convention.
In either event, election shall be by general referendum ballot as provided for in Article IX, Sec. 2.
Candidates for General Administration office shall be listed in random order. The ballot shall include space for write- in candidates. Either a verbal acceptance on the floor of the Convention or a written acceptance addressed to the General Secretary-Treasurer must be received from each candidate whose name is placed on the ballot. No member shall be a candidate for or be permitted to hold more than one General Administration office at a time.

c) The three candidates receiving the highest number of nominations for General Secretary-Treasurer shall have their names placed on the ballot. Members who have served three or more consecutive terms as General Secretary-Treasurer shall not have their names placed on the ballot, except in the event that three qualified nominees cannot otherwise be secured. When this is the case, the names of the nominees who have served three or more consecutive terms may be placed on the ballot, but the ballot shall clearly state the number of terms in succession previously served by such a candidate. All write-in candidates who meet the requirements of Article III, Section 3(a) are considered qualified nominees. The one receiving the highest number of votes on referendum being elected.

d) The 21 candidates receiving the highest number of nominations for General Executive Board member shall have their names placed on the ballot. Members who have served three or more consecutive terms on the General Executive Board shall not have their names placed on the ballot, except in the event that 15 qualified nominees cannot otherwise be secured. When this is the case, the names of the nominees who have served three or more consecutive terms may be placed on the ballot, but the ballot shall clearly state the number of terms in succession previously served by such a nominee.
A write-in candidate must receive a minimum number of votes equal to 5% of the IWW members in good standing. All write-in candidates who receive the minimum number of votes and meet the requirements of Article III, Section 3(a), are considered qualified nominees. The seven nominees receiving the highest number of votes on the referendum shall constitute the General Executive Board.

 

[butchersapron]

If prejudice prevents an intelligent discussion here on democratic as opposed to Leninist models of organisation...

Is this what you think is happening Jean Luc?

 

[frogwoman]

At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)

 

[butchersapron]

At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)

They are the same group to all intents.

 

[butchersapron]

At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)

The court refused to recognise the group as the Socialist Party of Great Britain and instead joined the original Socialist Party of Great Britain

 

[Jean-Luc]

Is it really that bad? I didn't know tbh, I thought it was more democratic than that.

Of course not. Don't believe a word he says. Your initial assumption was right. Nobody can be expelled without a vote (referendum) of the membership. But, as I just said, let's not let stupid prejudices get in the way of discussing democratic alternatives to the Leninist organisational model.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course not. Don't believe a word he says. Your initial assumption was right. Nobody can be expelled without a vote (referendum) of the membership. But, as I just said, let's not let prejudice get in the way of discussing democratic alternatives to the Leninist organisational model.

It's rather simple jean luc - the party is set up to do a) - don't agree with that or the way you have historically choose to do it, then get out - democratically. I have no problem with that by the way. It's the facile opposition between this and and an undemocratic leninism that i'm highlighting.

 

[Jean-Luc]

It's the facile opposition between this and and an undemocratic leninism that i'm highlighting.

Well, unless you don't believe that socialists should organise at all, you must have some ideas on organisation. What is your non-facile alternative to the undemocratic organisation form favoured by Leninism?

 

[butchersapron]

Well, unless you don't believe that socialists should organise at all, you must have some ideas on organisation. What is your non-facile alternative to the undemocratic organisation form favoured by Leninism?

I think some socialists should definitely not organise at all. I note the only options you can see are open-leninism (trots) and secret-leninism (spgb) - only such a reduced world view could post the above. To imagine that these are the only options possible is hideous. I know that i'm close to allowing you to do an rmp3 here (and DK will be home soon) so i again suggest this goes on the SPGB thread, unless you can tie it to the SWP.

 

[andysays]

Ah yes Abbie Bakan

Why am I not surprised to discover she's American?

saying Cliff and German are guilty of an 'epistemological dissonance' with feminism

Ooh, harsh. That's pretty much the academic equivalent of calling them thick c*nts

'Anarchist Action Man'

I always wanted one of those when I was a kid, but the nearest I could get was the French Resistance one with a black polo-neck...

 

[belboid]

Why am I not surprised to discover she's American?

Canadian.

 

[andysays]

Canadian.

OK, North American...

 

[butchersapron]

Colonialist.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I'm not interested in discussing the spgb here or even there, but I would like you explain what you mean by "secret-leninism". You are coming across as an individualist anarchist who regards any majority decision-making as "the tyranny of the majority". Is the IWW constitution also "secret-leninism"?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm not interested in discussing the spgb here or even there, but I would like you explain what you mean by "secret-leninism". You are coming across as an individualist anarchist who regards any majority decision-making as "the tyranny of the majority". Is the IWW constitution also "secret-leninism"?

You're not interested in discussing the SPGB here or there, but in fact that's exactly what you are interested in doing. The rest of us aren't interested in having you discussing the SPGB any further here at all. Please go resurrect that 76 page thread.

 

[andysays]

Waking up in the morning? At 6:48 PM? Sounds like he'd not grasped the 24 hour clock. I'd advise him to change the joke to being about taking an after dinner nap. But he's dead so I can't.

Just goes to show that these Leninist cult leaders are lazy bastards who lounge in bed all day and don't get up until after tea time. No connection with the working class at all...

 

[discokermit]

I know that i'm close to allowing you to do an rmp3 here (and DK will be home soon) so i again suggest this goes on the SPGB thread, unless you can tie it to the SWP.

right. i'm home. clear off, pesky spgb. not imposs though. he's funny.

ignoring rmp3 is proving to be very relaxing, might i add. i should have done it sooner.

 

[Jean-Luc]

You're not interested in discussing the SPGB here or there, but in fact that's exactly what you are interested in doing.

No, I'm interested in putting the boot into Leninism. Which is clearly why you don't want me around. I've also noticed that whenever the spotlight is turned oton the similarities between the CWI and the SWP you don't want to discuss that either.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No, I'm interested in putting the boot into Leninism. Which is clearly why you don't want me around.

Nah, half the people here put the boot into "Leninism" from time to time. I don't want you here because you're an obtuse bore.

 

[imposs1904]

Nah, half the people here put the boot into "Leninism" from time to time. I don't want you here because you're an obtuse bore.

don't be a prick, Nigel. if all the obtuse bores left this thread, all that would be left would be frogwoman and discokermit . . . liking each other's posts.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

don't be a prick, Nigel.

I'll tell you what, I won't be a prick to that clown if he stops whining that his no doubt startlingly insightful opinions are being silenced when he's asked to take his off topic blathering to a more appropriate thread.

 

[imposs1904]

How subject to change has your EC been over the last 20 years? This is relevant if we loo at the bureaucracy/substitution angle that the latest goonboy post was covering. Or we could move it to the hilarious SPGB thread.

Any excuse to hide from the kids. I only have the figures from 2001 onwards, but at least* 44 different people have been on the SPGB EC during the time 2001 thru' 2013.

The EC consists of 10 Party members.

*I may have missed a couple. The kids found me.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

And finally some news. After months and months, the SWP Central Committee finally make a public defence of their record and stance. It's by Julie Sherry, who I believe is one of the new CC members brought on it December when a couple of dissidents got the boot:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/challenging-sexism-heart-swp-work

 

[treelover]

ah, young, photogenic, etc...

 

[imposs1904]

And finally some news. After months and months, the SWP Central Committee finally make a public defence of their record and stance. It's by Julie Sherry, who I believe is one of the new CC members brought on it December when a couple of dissidents got the boot:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/challenging-sexism-heart-swp-work

sorry to be spotterish but any relation to Dave Sherry? It's not the most common of surnames.

 

[laptop]

Boilerplate justification, too. She could almost have striven to produce the impression that women members don't write their own copy.

 

[laptop]

At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)

Oooh, look:

 

[killer b]

jesus. could have tried harder. what was the point of that article?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Thanks. I think I can answer for many organisations that aspire to be democratic, eg trade union branches and voluntary associations and clubs.

1. Candidates are elected as individuals, i.e the members vote for individuals (whether the system is the first 10 or whatever past the post or the single transferable vote). Candidates are nominated by branches.
2. The slate system is not applied, particularly not by an outgoing committee proposing the slate as that means committees perpetuating themselves through co-optation.
3. The Conference agenda is set by branches proposing motions. The executive committee cannot propose motions.
4. Branches elect their own organisers who are responsible to them.
5. So your party is not as bad as the AWL whose constitution includes this rule: "Branch or fraction organisers can give binding instructions to activists in their areas on all day today matters."

The main difference between this democratic form of organisation and the Leninist model is that the executive bodies do not propose their own slate of candidates and do not set the Conference agenda and so a self-perpetuating leadership which can get the policies it favours adopted is made more difficult (as opposed to encouraged, in fact institutionalised, in the Leninist model).

For significant periods the Bolsheviks didn't use a slate system either-why do you think a slate system is "leninist"?

I note you say that your membership votes on whether to expel someone. We've never expelled anyone for political differences as far as I'm aware.

 

[treelover]

Is the CIF article the beginning of the 'fightback'?, maybe they are not going to disappear

reading it, they really are shameless...

btw, its like a paid advert, sympathisers at the G?