SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Spanky Longhorn]

I think it's a bit simplistic to say that SWPers even the hardcore cadre give up independent thought.

Of course plenty of the long termers (especially the ones shouting "liars") are basically idiots who were never capable of particularly interesting or original thought - however a large number of even those who will remain committed to the leadership (which is the same as commitment to the organisation) are capable of independent thought it's, just that they have found a community of like minded people who in many cases they have worked alongside through adversity for a long time, building long irreplacable relationships.

It's nice to feel part of something special, part of a gang who are fighting for a better world - and continued membership of the gang means agreeing with the bulk of it's beliefs, which makes it much easier to agree with them, and discourages you from even trying to look for alternative points of view, and it also makes it just as easy to buy into radical changes of direction by the same token.

It's not stupidity, it's not lack of independent thought - it is a desire to belong to something that matters.

Indoctrination happens almost by accident - through working, drinking, discussing, fighting and even fucking together.

That's not to say the CC are not cynical hacks - but they're not a cult.

That's not to say other left groups don't function in a cult like way - but I don't believe the SWP (or SP) do.

 

[Das Uberdog]

areas of the SWP do function like cults, even if the organisation as an entirety doesn't

 

[Firky]

Apologies for shoving this in here but I thought it may be of interest to some people here (nicked it off some anti-edl FB group):

It's pointless but... ?!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Don't doubt the courage of this Tom Walker fella but what struck me most about his letter was how low his level of politics was for a supposed marxist journalist. Maybe that says more about the way people are pushed into positions of responsibility in the swp without adequate edcuation in the basics of marxism. But I mean his naive paragraph telling how he didn't know what was coming at conference is quite sad. What sort of trot journo says something as wet as "Though some other party workers were getting involved in a faction, I felt it best to maintain a sort of journalistic distance." Bollox to that, can't see comrade McCann saying that. And in the section where he talks about the way 'feminist' was a label of abuse in all of this he reveals an almost touchingly naive ignorance about the party's history of ideas when it comes to feminism. "Marxist and feminist theory would surely agree..." no sorry just stop there you should never have been writing articles for a marxist newspaper. I know that's echoing the arguments that will be used by the cc against him but it's also true.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not really the most important thing to focus on in that article though is it?

 

[sihhi]

Apologies for shoving this in here but I thought it may be of interest to some people here (nicked it off some anti-edl FB group):

It's pointless but... ?!

Firky, They're far-right and they 'ought to put up or shut up'

 

[bolshiebhoy]

It is because other than personal disgust I didn't hear a political case in it for closing the doors at swp hq and going home.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Isn't personal disgust enough? Or is it OK to carry on like this provided the political line is agreeable?

And isn't there a bit more to this quote that Nigel Irritable posted above than 'just personal disgust'?

What has happened since the SWP conference at the weekend? Despite everything, the CC position is ‘draw a line under it and move on’. The opposition were also told to sign up to this or face expulsion. That applied as of the minute conference ended - and the leadership intends to enforce it.
The CC is shutting down all debate, on the pretext that it is about the rule that factions must dissolve after conference. Party workers are being spoken to individually, and if they refuse to give a guarantee that they will never so much as mention the case again, they are being told they must leave their party jobs. Some have already gone, others may be going as I write.
Meanwhile branches are being told that the criticisms of the disputes committee raised in conference will not be reported to them and cannot be discussed by any member, even in outline. At the behest of the CC, the Socialist Worker report of the conference does not even mention the disputes committee session. For one, this means that the reason behind the alternative CC slate is not explained at all.

In fact, looking at the article, I have no idea how you could say it was 'just' personal disgust - as if someone's somehow politically naive if they leave just because they're disgusted with the way this was handled. I'm sorry but you're starting to sound like an apologist.

 

[emanymton]

I don't agree that they're incapable.
It's actually far worse than that, insofar as these are people who willingly give up the freedom to exercise independent thought. If they merely were incapable/lacked the capacity, you could at least feel sorry for them. As it is, they've willingly ceded their freedom to think critically. That doesn't deserve pity. It deserves a kicking.

Oh, no doubt about it these people are utter bastards.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

For goodness sakes the cc are doing what they've always done, what Tom has probably done at their behest a hundred times. Have the debate in a limited way then force people to shut up and move on. It's the way the party works but Tom acts like he's never heard of democratic centralism before. He may not agree with it now but this anguished hand waving about these horrible tactics is totally apolitical. And not very convincing.

There are good arguments for giving up on the leninist idea but they have to be made not just assumed, especially by someone hoping to convince others to leave. Reads like he was never a committed leninist which is fine but not an argument other more convinced members will listen to.

 

[two sheds]

Sorry bb, but you're sounding to me like someone who is still in a cult criticising someone leaving a cult, suggesting that they never believed the cult's tenets in the first place.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think you have to be opposed to democratic centralism or Leninism to think that's unacceptable. You really are sounding like an SWP hack now - you're saying exactly what the CC will be saying about him.

And I'm fairly sure the CC have never overseen a botched rape investigation before.

 

[two sheds]

One thing Tom Walker said that I thought was fundamental was:

It is stated that the accuser did not want to go to the police, as is her absolute right if that was truly her decision. However, knowing the culture of the SWP, I doubt that was a decision she made entirely free from pressure.

 

[Pickman's model]

For goodness sakes the cc are doing what they've always done, what Tom has probably done at their behest a hundred times. Have the debate in a limited way then force people to shut up and move on. It's the way the party works but Tom acts like he's never heard of democratic centralism before. He may not agree with it now but this anguished hand waving about these horrible tactics is totally apolitical. And not very convincing.

There are good arguments for giving up on the leninist idea but they have to be made not just assumed, especially by someone hoping to convince others to leave. Reads like he was never a committed leninist which is fine but not an argument other more convinced members will listen to.

Few leninists today are committed: bloody care in the community, in't it

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe that says more about the way people are pushed into positions of responsibility in the swp without adequate edcuation in the basics of marxism.

how high did you rise in the party then?

 

[sihhi]

One thing Tom Walker said that I thought was fundamental was:

That's a big accusation one that even the speakers at the Conference didn't make.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

That's a big accusation one that even the speakers at the Conference didn't make.

Cause it's nonsense. How does he know what they did, he talks like he isn't even aware the party has ever had these investigations before, is totally outraged that they would have them. Then tells us he knows what they must have been like.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

And I'm fairly sure the CC have never overseen a botched rape investigation before.

Without necessarily agreeing with your implicit assumption that they have this time can I ask why would you think that? Course they've made mistakes in other disputes.

 

[Rosa_L]

Mk12, thanks for the link, but I try to explain how the theory adopted by Marxists (in particular) has created a completely unique mind set not found anywhere else. I attempt a materialist explanation for this.

For those who find that essay too long, I have summarised some of its main points here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Summary_of_Essay_Nine-Part-02.htm

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Sorry bb, but you're sounding to me like someone who is still in a cult criticising someone leaving a cult, suggesting that they never believed the cult's tenets in the first place.

Well that is another way of closing off discussion. Anyone who disagrees with the ntoion that the swp is a cult is clearly a cultist. I just don't think a lot of the younger folk who have joined from the movements have picked up the core politics in their time in the party. That's not something the cc needs to be proud of by the way.

 

[Athos]

Without necessarily agreeing with your implicit assumption that they have this time can I ask why would you think that? Course they've made mistakes in other disputes.

A crucial part of any tribunal is that justice is seen to be done. Given that so many in the SWP don't think that justice has been done in this case, then, regardless of the whether or not Smith's friends reached the right verdict in when deciding his case, the process was botched.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Without necessarily agreeing with your implicit assumption that they have this time can I ask why would you think that? Course they've made mistakes in other disputes.

OK, let me put it another way - I sincerely hope the SWP haven't overseen a botched rape investigation before. Maybe I'm being too charitable?

It's not an implicit assumption - it's about as explicit as it's possible to be - I came out and said it. And it clearly was botched, you don't divide a party as ideologically narrow as the SWP right down the middle on something like this unless something has gone very wrong.

And this Tom isn't all that old - I remember meeting him when I was in the SWP, which wasn't that long ago - around the time the alleged attack took place in fact, and if I remember correctly he was still a student back then. Or do you mean to suggest that there have probable been more botched rape investigations in the last 5 or so years? Cos if that's the case it seems that I'm the one defending their good name against you. Or should he have known about botched rape investigations that took place before he was in the party? Is there some kind of introductory botched rape investigation pamphlet that they forgot to show me?

I really can't believe that you seem to be defending the SWP but criticising him for saying it when he really should know this kind of thing is totally acceptable in the SWP. Or whatever it is you're arguing now.

I strongly suggest you think before posting again because if I wasn't an ex-member myself I would probably be coming to the conclusion that the SWP really is an abusive cult and that its former members require deprograming.

I think what he's done is really quite brave and admirable and that's the case regardless of how politically naive he might me - and I'm certainly not reading any of that as a criticism or abandonment of democratic centralism - unless you define democratic centralism as 'what the SWP's CC does'. People here might have criticisms of democratic centralism, I know I'm not 100% sold on it, but thinking behind the stuff is nigel's quote doesn't contradict it at all. Your attacks on Tom and the justifications you're coming out with when questioned are getting more and more bizarre.

 

[emanymton]

Oh, no doubt about it these people are utter bastards.

This might be a little harsh thinking about it. But it really passes me off that most of those who voted to accept the DC report would also have voted to accept it even if it had reached the opposite conclusion, as long as the CC said so. Also I had suspected that I knew who X is and have now had it confirmed. I know it shouldn't make a difference but it really fucks me of that this shit is happening to someone I knew and quite liked. It passes me of people she used to think of her friends will now be treating her like shit.


Someone has just mentioned to me that Pat Stack once said that one of the problems with the SWP is that its members fight like lions outside the party but roll over like pussy cats inside it.

 

[emanymton]

A crucial part of any tribunal is that justice is seen to be done. Given that so many in the SWP don't think that justice has been done in this case, then, regardless of the whether or not Smith's friends reached the right verdict in when deciding his case, the process was botched.

One thing a lot of people are angry about is this disparity between the treatment given to Delta and the treatment given to the 4 that were expelled.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

One thing a lot of people are angry about is this disparity between the treatment given to Delta and the treatment given to the 4 that were expelled.

comrade Delta

 

[bolshiebhoy]

People need to slow down a little. Everyone has a breaking point, Tom clearly reached his somewhere during the debate on the DC report. Fair enough, good luck to him. And having made his decision then everything he ever believed was acceptable leninst practice (although it sounds like he made a habit of not having an opinion up until now out of journalistic distance whatever that is) is immediately evil and abhorent. Again fair enough and totally understandable. We all go through that when we break with something we've been very involved in. I know I did. Then a few years later you come to realise things weren't as cut and dried as you thought. And that the people you thought were deluded cultists were mostly quite sane stalwarts who you suspect might have been banging their heads against a brick wall (my one remaining excuse for never rejoining) but didn't deserve to be insulted as people needing deprogramming.

 

[cesare]

This is getting increasingly bizarre

 

[two sheds]

Well that is another way of closing off discussion. Anyone who disagrees with the ntoion that the swp is a cult is clearly a cultist. I just don't think a lot of the younger folk who have joined from the movements have picked up the core politics in their time in the party. That's not something the cc needs to be proud of by the way.

I don't think so. I have no problem of people criticising Tom Watson (the things you criticised him for were what I took issue with, not the fact of you criticising him). The criticisms need to be pertinent. It's for example whether he's accurately reported what happened and what peoples' concerns are - whether he was a committed Leninist should be irrelevant and to me gives the cult edge to what you say.

Cause it's nonsense. How does he know what they did, he talks like he isn't even aware the party has ever had these investigations before, is totally outraged that they would have them. Then tells us he knows what they must have been like.

You just don't know that it was nonsense, and saying that it is another red flag (no pun intended ). No, Watson doesn't know either but he said that explicitly ("knowing the culture of the SWP, I doubt that was a decision she made entirely free from pressure"). He doubts it - you're saying that you do know. Only one person really knows whether she was pressurised not to go to the police and that is the woman herself. And you'll only be able to find out by having someone who isn't involved with the SWP asking her in a safe environment with no fear of repercussions (which I feel itself would be very difficult to guarantee).

 

[SpineyNorman]

People need to slow down a little. Everyone has a breaking point, Tom clearly reached his somewhere during the debate on the DC report. Fair enough, good luck to him. And having made his decision then everything he ever believed was acceptable leninst practice (although it sounds like he made a habit of not having an opinion up until now out of journalistic distance whatever that is) is immediately evil and abhorent. Again fair enough and totally understandable. We all go through that when we break with something we've been very involved in. I know I did. Then a few years later you come to realise things weren't as cut and dried as you thought. And that the people you thought were deluded cultists were mostly quite sane stalwarts who you suspect might have been banging their heads against a brick wall (my one remaining excuse for never rejoining) but didn't deserve to be insulted as people needing deprogramming.

That's just really odd. I didn't say they needed deprograming - I said that if all I had to go on were your posts rather than direct personal experience then that's a conclusion I might draw.

Your attempts to smear him as some kind of stupid naive kid who doesn't know what he's on about and who has made an ill considered snap decision are becoming increasingly desperate. He's not been around that long and unless the SWP are far, far worse than I thought they were he'll never have seen anything like this before.

 

[two sheds]

Just so as not to give the wrong impression when comparing all this to cults, my experience is of scientology and this SWP spat is a beacon of open democratic accountability to what went on inside there. There'd be none of this namby pamby discussing the rights and wrongs of what happened. Any criticism of the church or Hubband and you were up for Ethics punishments until you recanted and made reparations.

There is an interesting separation between criticising Hubbard (Marx/Lenin) and the CoS (SWP), though. If people criticised the CoS it was an implicit criticism of Hubbard which is rapidly heading towards expulsion and being declared a Suppressive Person ('can be tricked, sued or lied to, or destroyed').

BB criticising Watson's Leninian credentials rather than addressing his criticism faintly blurs that separation.