SWP expulsions and squabbles

[frogwoman]

If i remember right because of this article: Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant - and the SW TUC have this last week attempted to ban related people from speaking about the radical origins of mayday this year. Same mentality.

so because they're just picking random words from the article and not really reading it?

 

[treelover]

That the left as represented by the likes of SU and the SWP has failed isn't an opinion, it's an observation.

...and I've posted many, many times what I think should be done instead. But, save a pain in the ass search, put crudely I'd say starting from scratch, bottom up, rebuilding the ideas of mutual aid, solidarity and self-organisation, and then putting these not practice.

Unite Community?

 

[butchersapron]

so because they're just picking random words from the article and not really reading it?

It's because andy newman doesn't accept that there can be any criticism of the grand w/c->unions->labour party narrative and is prepared to talk dishonest and smeary shit in response to critiques of it. Which is one of the problems that SU faces if it wants to go where Tony says it does.

 

[chilango]

Unite Community?

Has potential, yes.

Though I'm cautious about the top down nature of it and how the relationship to the "labour movement" might inhibit genuine self-organisation.

But certainly a positive move.

 

[chilango]

It's because andy newman doesn't accept that there can be any criticism of the grand w/c->unions->labour party narrative and is prepared to talk dishonest and smeary shit in response to critiques of it. Which is one of the problems that SU faces if it wants to go where Tony says it does.

Tony hasn't really said where he wants it to go.

 

[butchersapron]

Tony hasn't really said where he wants it to go.

This sort of thing isn't compatible with Newman at the controls:

I guess if I've got a personal mission, it's to provide a really serious range of left wing voices to a really diverse audience, and one that doesn't seek to impose a way of thinking and isn't boring.

 

[butchersapron]

"(happy people like Yunus, posting anonymously for 5 or more years, always nasty and always generating a nasty response"

So he was the Undertaker, not surprised, nasty piece of work...

Not sure why you've linked him to that name but a) that person accused Ian Bone of being a cop and b) You'd think Yunus would be keeping quiet given recent events.

 

[chilango]

This sort of thing isn't compatible with Newman at the controls:

No.

But it's pretty ambitious given that no-one has managed it even with a far more credible starting point.

 

[The39thStep]

Its name does come from a time when there was an attempt to set up a "socialist unity network" of independent left wingers; so it's purely historical now - it doesn't have "unity" as a particular mission (cos what do we mean by "unity"? Whose? On what terms?). None of us would be averse to a change of name, I don't think.

It does have a very specific audience: Its audience is the broad trade union movement. It's one of the most popular sites on the left. So, roughly speaking, we publish a mixture of deep and shallow politics, deep and shallow culture, moans and groans, and some theoretical stuff, that our audience likes.

I can't give you a mission statement cos there isn't one. So it's necessarily broad and vague. We try to write about stuff going on in the union movement, for sure - and I think we worked out that 1 to 1.5% of our articles are about the SWP.

One of the reasons I'm involved is to sharpen it up a bit, to give it more focus. That all takes a long long time, cos I'm a train driver and so I can't do any work on the site during working hours. We've all got working lives, so what we do has to be done in our spare time. But over time, we want to have more direction for the site, more diverse opinions on the left, more guest posts, and much broader discussions.

Wouldn't it benefit from an appraisal of those aims through a regime of open and transparent democracy , election of board mods from membership etc, editorial democracy?
One of the problems with the site is its reputation in that many active trade unionist I know think that it is just one persons self perpetuating fiefdom , giving the impression that its either his way or the highway. In this day and age I am not sure that such outdated , hierarchical and non inclusive structures are fit for purpose. Hope you find this helpful feedback.

 

[Pickman's model]

Wouldn't it benefit from an appraisal of those aims through a regime of open and transparent democracy , election of board mods from membership etc, editorial democracy?
One of the problems with the site is its reputation in that many active trade unionist I know think that it is just one persons self perpetuating fiefdom , giving the impression that its either his way or the highway. In this day and age I am not sure that such outdated , hierarchical and non inclusive structures are fit for purpose. Hope you find this helpful feedback.

it is one person's fiefdom.

next.

 

[The39thStep]

can think of a few we'd like you to have too.

Captain Hurrahs stuff on Cambodia deserves a new outlet

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Wouldn't it benefit from an appraisal of those aims through a regime of open and transparent democracy , election of board mods from membership etc, editorial democracy?
One of the problems with the site is its reputation in that many active trade unionist I know think that it is just one persons self perpetuating fiefdom , giving the impression that its either his way or the highway. In this day and age I am not sure that such outdated , hierarchical and non inclusive structures are fit for purpose. Hope you find this helpful feedback.

I think they should set up a temporary forum called the junta for an invited group of likeminded souls so they can come up with a genuinely democratic framework for internetz blogging

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't know either way. But they thought it was ok when an allegation of rape was made to investigate using a panel of seven of his mates and to give her evidence to the accused, but not let her know what he had said.

They also thought it was ok to suspend for the Sheffield organiser for just two years and to praise him for what a great organiser he was.

that's true, we don't know either way. To be objective, that is a very important fact to establish. Even now, I think this matter should go to the police. I cannot see what the woman has to lose now. It's become full public knowledge, so there is no reason whatsoever to not go to the police.

disputes committee is elected once a year so what would you have done, and how?
How long would you wait to deal with the issues the woman wanted dealing with? Would you hold a special conference, to elect disputes committee, in which nobody knew Martin Smith? How would you do this, and protect the privacy of the complainant? And Martin Smith?

PS. Not ignoring your other comments, deal with, one at a time.

 

[TremulousTetra]

which are the pieces that get most views and comments, tony? I'd hazard a guess its the lefty navel gazing stuff. People used to get the Weakly Wanker for the gossip, not for Jack Conrads articles.

does the left do much else than navelgazing (including the SWP these days)?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm no expert either, but I do understand that. Obviously the emotional damage of being raped by somebody you know is a serious and real consequence of rape. But I wasn't making a specific comment on whether the victim knows their attacker or not; just because a victim knows an attacker doesn't mean at all that the rape isn't of the (for want of a better way of describing this) more violent type which I described. Therefore it seems to me that the scars left by rape can be both 1) deeper scars if the victim knew their attacker and 2) scars the depth of which correlates to the level of violence involved. It seems to me that every rape is a violent act, but it is also not incorrect to say that there are levels of violence... I know I'm explaining this incredibly badly because I'm struggling to explain what I mean without implying that some rapes are 'less serious', which is not what I want to say. I guess what I mean is that all rapes are by definition violent and abusive acts, but that it is wrong to say that one rape necessarily has qualitatively the same negative impact on a victim than another. At least I think that's what I'm trying to say.

think to be honest, it's pretty impossible to know how an individual will respond to being raped (male or female).

I think if you want to compare one to the other, the heinous nature of the crime would be dictated by the intention of the perpetrator, surely? If a gang of you set out to apprehend somebody, and rape them, that's clearly a premeditated and more despicable act, then 'stumbling into a rape' in a drunken stupor with clear signals from a partner you've been in a relationship with may be four years.

Again am not talking about the victim, I'm only talking about the level of premeditation et cetera. And I'm not suggesting for one minute, "stumbling into a rape" in any way excuses it. I'm just trying to explain why I would see one, as worse than the other.

 

[discokermit]

i like tony collins.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Bolshiebhoy will you do anything to defend the central committee and discredit the opposition, is there no limits?

The latest is that you have dismissed accusations of bullying despite knowing absolutely about the details. But you just write it off as certain kinds of feminists whinging.

Can you imagine, for instance, if after the woman who accussed the Lib Dem Lord of sexual harrassment/assault, someone defending the Lib Dem in public had reacted with the line that he should have "kept his dick in his trousers" and that there was a problem with "certain kinds of feminists". Expect that in this case your comments, if anything, are even worse, as there has not only been an allegation towards Delta of sexual harassment, another woman has alleged that he raped her. Do you seriously see your kinds of comments as appropriate? Or does it not matter because at all costs the IS tradition has to be defended. A tradition, incidentally that appears to have achieved very little and has let to a situation where they are more isolated than ever, with even more useless fronts than ever, and no idea of how to go forward other than going around in circles.

What is certain is that Delta thought it was perfectly ok, as a 48 year old leader of the SWP, to sleep with two women, one who was 17, and the other not much older. Yet this all gets swept under the carpet by people like you from the loyalist side by the pathetic defence that it is ok because you don't accept bourgeois morals, and heh you slept with a 17 year old when you were 22 so it's all ok. As if that's the only people who would have concerns about this. Indeed you'd think that if anything, socialists would have more concern. Unless of course they think that it's ok for a socialist organisation to be used by middle aged men to sleep around with teenage women from a position of leadership.

There is still the Sheffield case, where an organiser of the SWP was accussed of rape, sexual harrassment, attacking his partner, and general sexism and misogyny. It's still not clear exactly what the central committee accepted he had done, but they suspended him for two years, the same "sentence" they gave to four people for discussing internal SWP business on facebook. They then thought it was a good idea, despite accepting at least some of the allegations were true, that they should praise him for being a great organiser, give him some SWP literature on women and say they welcome him back to the fold. This was the official position of the CC. Or does this all get swept under the carpet as well because there were "certain kinds of feminists" making the complaints, and heh hoh, everyone can change.

These cases don't come out of nowhere. They come out of the stalinist politics and method of the SWP which puts itself as an organisation before anything else, including the working class which it is ever more isolated from. The fact that SWP loyalist trade unionists I know are now going round saying that it's all lies, despite knowing fuck all about the case, is also reflective of this (I have also seen the surge of paper selling outside workplaces that Past Caring talked about).

You and RMP3 can go around all you like talking about abstract debates, but it doesn't change what has happened.

it is difficult to deal with all the issues you obviously feel passionate about, in one go. So excuse me not dealing with them all. I will come back to other issues, if you want to raise them again to me. (Some, I don't have answers for you, I don't know the answers.)

Are you saying there is no circumstances in which it is none of our business if a 60-year-old person, wants to have an affair, a relationship with a 17-year-old person, if it is totally mutually consensual?

 

[TremulousTetra]

As a Socialist Party member I don't feel particularly welcome at a place that refers to the organisation I'm part of as a sect or a cult.
I'm not keen on the bullying behavior I've seen of commentators who don't fit the narrow 'in group' of opinions.

It's not just that people slag off SP posters, people do it here as well but I don't mind it at all. The reason is I never sense any sort of malevolence from people criticizing the SP here whereas that's most definitely the vibe from a lot of folks I get on SU. I think a lot of people who don't fit the mould feel the same as well.

SU is a deeply unpleasant place in much the same way Lenin's Tomb is. They're both headed by people who far too pleased with how clever they are and they both have a bullying, nasty clique of regular commentators completely intolerant of genuinely dissenting views.

oh the irony.

 

[TremulousTetra]

"These cases don't come out of nowhere. They come out of the stalinist politics and method of the SWP which puts itself as an organisation before anything else, including the working class which it is ever more isolated from. The fact that SWP loyalist trade unionists I know are now going round saying that it's all lies, despite knowing fuck all about the case, is also reflective of this (I have also seen the surge of paper selling outside workplaces that Past Caring talked about).

Not just damaged political subcultures, but others: the rave culture/scene had plenty of this sort of power unbalanced behaviour, where especially the high priests of the scene such as D.J's and promoters, even the addicted and be-draggled, sought out the young ones...

I think there are plenty of statements made in this thread that look like lies, Like some of the things you have said there.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'd agree with all of this. On Urban there are people who fundamentally disagree with the SP and say so, but even when they're taking the piss it's always in a fairly fraternal fashion. That just isn't the case on SU, where we're constantly told that we're a cult or a sect and there's always dark hints that our internal culture is like as not just as bad as the SWP's.[/quote] oh the irony.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That the left as represented by the likes of SU and the SWP has failed isn't an opinion, it's an observation.

...and I've posted many, many times what I think should be done instead. But, save a pain in the ass search, put crudely I'd say starting from scratch, bottom up, rebuilding the ideas of mutual aid, solidarity and self-organisation, and then putting these not practice.

one man's fact, is another man's opinion.

that the left as represented by SU, the SWP, and everybody else Has failed is opinion, and an observation of mine. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

it is difficult to deal with all the issues you obviously feel passionate about, in one go. So excuse me not dealing with them all. I will come back to other issues, if you want to raise them again to me. (Some, I don't have answers for you, I don't know the answers.)

Are you saying there is no circumstances in which it is none of our business if a 60-year-old person, wants to have an affair, a relationship with a 17-year-old person, if it is totally mutually consensual?

Of course there are circumstances which are none of our business. But it doesn't make you a bourgeois moralist to think what the hell is a 48 year old leader of a socialist organisation doing trying to go to bed with a 17 year old, and another teenager not much older. Personally I think he is a tosser doing that behind his partners back as well, which I imagine must have been fairly humiliating. All in all it doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of him. Using your position as a political leader to sleep with young women, which is effectively what has happened, even in a best case scenario, is totally out of order in my view and he should be made to step down for that alone.

On a general point of age differences while I'm not saying it is always a problem, I think most parents would raise an eyebrow if their 17 year old daughter brought back a 48 bloke and said that this was their partner. I would sympathise with this, and wouldn't just denounce them as reactionaries. It might turn out that there is nothing wrong with it, but I can see at the very least why people might be concerned. At to that the power relation of someone in a teacher role, or a leader in a political orgnaisation and I can see why there would be even more concerns.

As for feeling passionate about it, the reason for this is the disgusting way in which the "loyalists" are treating the opposition. I think BB has been particuarly out of order for saying things like Delta should have kept his dick in his trousers, when there is a rape allegation. If this had been said by a leading Lib Dem then I can imagine what SWPers would have to say. There clearly is a problem with not just Delta, but the Sheffield case. To write all this off as "certain kinds of feminists" and write off bullying allegations without even knowing the facts shows someone that will blindly defend the leadership whatever they do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Has potential, yes.

Though I'm cautious about the top down nature of it and how the relationship to the "labour movement" might inhibit genuine self-organisation.

But certainly a positive move.

If there was any
significant self organisation going on about these issues, you wouldn't need any top-down initiatives. It is the complete absence of working class self organisation, that makes many revolutionaries/politicals/Labour movement activists try something. And fail, year in year out? Is this a responsibility of the people who try, of 30 years of defeat hanging over the consciousness of the working class like an albatross?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

that's true, we don't know either way. To be objective, that is a very important fact to establish. Even now, I think this matter should go to the police. I cannot see what the woman has to lose now. It's become full public knowledge, so there is no reason whatsoever to not go to the police.

disputes committee is elected once a year so what would you have done, and how?
How long would you wait to deal with the issues the woman wanted dealing with? Would you hold a special conference, to elect disputes committee, in which nobody knew Martin Smith? How would you do this, and protect the privacy of the complainant? And Martin Smith?

PS. Not ignoring your other comments, deal with, one at a time.

I agree that it would be good if it was taken up by the police. But other posters on here have persuaded me that if the person doesn't want to go to the police, or can't, then something still has to be done. The reasons for not going to the police have been given on this thread. The person might not have immigration status, they might have had past terrible experiences with the police etc

I think that any responsbile leadership would look beyond some formal rule book. They could have sought independent advice from organisations that deal with rape and got legal advice. They could have found a way to have a panel to investigate that didn't have his mates on it. Loads of suggestions have been given on this thread around that issue.

The fact is that if the Lib Dems had set up an internal panel which had seven of that Lords mates on it, then they would rightly have been ripped to shreds for doing it.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

oh the irony.

To be fair, for all my criticisms of the Socialist Party, they seem to have dealt with the Steve Hedley issue far, far better than the SWP have with Martin Smith, the Sheffield organiser etc

 

[TremulousTetra]

I agree that it would be good if it was taken up by the police. But other posters on here have persuaded me that if the person doesn't want to go to the police, or can't, then something still has to be done. The reasons for not going to the police have been given on this thread. The person might not have immigration status, they might have had past terrible experiences with the police etc

I think that any responsbile leadership would look beyond some formal rule book. They could have sought independent advice from organisations that deal with rape and got legal advice. They could have found a way to have a panel to investigate that didn't have his mates on it. Loads of suggestions have been given on this thread around that issue.

The fact is that if the Lib Dems had set up an internal panel which had seven of that Lords mates on it, then they would rightly have been ripped to shreds for doing it.

I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about this woman. What reasons have been given in this thread, for this particular woman not going to the police, then or NOW? I don't know that information, do you have a link to that in this thread, or elsewhere. Especially now, it is being discussed on the Internet daily. I don't think immigrant status is an issue here, is it?

The woman involved has gone to the press. She said she didn't go to the police, for fear of being expelled. Then she left the party. The woman involved then returned to the party, and asked for disputes committee to handle it. She knew who they were, it would be people who knew Martin Smith. It would be pretty hard for people not to know Martin Smith in such a tiny organisation (I meant to raise this issue before). You say the could have found a way, how in such a tiny organisation could they do that democratically?

I actually agree with you about the Lib Dems, and that it has been dealt with badly, but given the structures of the party at the time, I come to the conclusion if you really really really wanted to put the interests of the party, before the interests of the individuals Martin Smith and the woman, you should have refused to deal with it. With the structures of the party at the time, there was no other way to safeguard the interests of the party. (You cannot just throw away a rule book in a political party. But even if you had, people would still have made this an issue.)

Looking at it from this perspective, the interests of the party, just for one moment, you could equally ask, why didn't they put the interests of the party above those of the two individuals, and refuse to handle it? What do you think the answers to this question would be?

I think you see the fairness in the arguments, it would have been impossible to restructure the party, in an adequate time frame, protecting everybody's privacy. This gives them the option of going outside the party. Have people made suggestions of organisations the party could have given this issue to deal with, outside the party, which would have guaranteed privacy not only for the individuals involved, but for the party?

I know the person that sat with the woman, if Rita is who I think it is. The woman that went back in and complained about how the situation had been dealt with by the disputes committee, and I trust her judgement. Don't think there is any excuse for this. The party should have gone outside, if they were going to handle it themselves, and find out what questions to ask, and how you asked them. But to be honest with you, even if they had handled it better, I cannot see people like the Daily Mail ever not making political capital out of this situation. The only way, and I realise this is just opinion, but the only way in my opinion they could have put the interests of the party first, was to not touch this with a barge pole.

This is all just speculation, from me. I don't know why they did this. I know at least two of the people involved, having worked closely with them for several years. Then there is Pat Stack. (Do have a full list of names of people on the disciplinary committee?) Would I consider everybody involved feminists? Absolutely!

I actually, in the end don't have answers. Only questions. Even the woman's use of the word slut, brings up questions. That's why I chose not to discuss it before now. Apparently if you don't defend them, you are wrong, and if you do defend them, you are wrong. Well what happens when you just choose to ask questions? Is that reasonable?

GTG

 

[sihhi]

Andy Newman telling off South African dockworkers in refusing to unload high-tech weaponry from China to Harare, later sent by plane: “As i understand it, the dockers were following the pro-MDC position of South African leftists like Patrick Bond"

 

[J Ed]

So, while doing some research on something entirely unrelated to the SWP I came across critics of the party saying that the SWP supported the FNLA and UNTIA in Angola against the MPLA, can anyone confirm that or put it in context? This is totally bizarre.

 

[butchersapron]

The woman involved has gone to the press.

Wrong.

And what a thing to get wrong.

(Don't bother replying - just clearing that up for anyone left reading your posts)

 

[butchersapron]

So, while doing some research on something entirely unrelated to the SWP I came across critics of the party saying that the SWP supported the FNLA and UNTIA in Angola against the MPLA, can anyone confirm that or put it in context? This is totally bizarre.

That's the US SWP.