SWP expulsions and squabbles

[chilango]

It looks like a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign is starting to get off the ground. Not a healthy development. Breaking up meetings and preventing people speaking is not a legitimate way to express political criticism or opposition.

It's perfectly legitimate, and understandable.


But...

Often tactically inept.

And Usually strategically a dead end.

 

[killer b]

It looks like a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign is starting to get off the ground. Not a healthy development. Breaking up meetings and preventing people speaking is not a legitimate way to express political criticism or opposition.

What would you suggest people do instead? I wouldn't share a platform with the cunts either. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[barney_pig]

Bolshie, well done, now I think your criticisms of the politics of the splitters might get a fairer hearing, as up to now it has been confounded by the suspicion that your sole motivation has been to defend the indefensible.
There is a lot to criticise, but the confusion of politics being displayed is a reflection of the zig zags of line pursued by the SWP over the past 20 years ( or longer). The confusion over what exactly is the IS tradition, both on here, and on rebel and loyalist sites, is a case in point. The identity politics you have critiqued is not an aberration but a reflection of the politics within the SWP over the past few years.

 

[killer b]

Of course the politics of the splitters is shit, you're unlikely to get much opposition to that. They were in the swp after all.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Thanks Nigel. Tragically enough, I've read nearly every single one of the 11,007 posts to date, but that discussion must have slipped my mind!

Clearly these particular circumstances are horrific for the wronged parties. i feel terrible for her that it's all been dragged out like this too

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced about the damage to the left as a whole. The SWP has a very specific 'brand' which in my experience, translated into contempt tinged with awe amongst the wider labour movement. That is, of a bunch of opportunist headbangers who nevertheless can occassionally get things done, and who represent the epitome of being radical and revolutionary.

So I think they're seen as very distinct amongst people sympathetic to the left. And the whole 'kangaroo court' narrative is fairly consistent with the notion of the SWP being an exception rather than the socialist rule. I can see the SP have a twofold problem though, 1) some of the above goes for Trotskyists and 'Leninist' revolutionaries as a whole, and 2) no doubt there'll be some confusion due to the s(w)p name similarity.

Somewhat separate to the above, as a recently departed swp member I was always aggravated to hear the SP having a better, more constructive (though also more dour!) reputation with such non-aligned left-wing individuals as know the difference. I tried to find this on the internet by the way but couldn't: do the SP describe themselves as 'feminist'? and is there anywhere stating the SP analysis of gender/women's oppression?

 

[Red Cat]

Of course the politics of the splitters is shit, you're unlikely to get much opposition to that. They were in the swp after all.

I used to be in the SWP and I am not a cunt.

 

[killer b]

Ok. I didn't say people who've left the swp are cunts, so its all good.

 

[The39thStep]

Ok. I didn't say people who've left the swp are cunts, so its all good.

What's your political past Killer?

 

[killer b]

I was once in the labour party. We all make mistakes.

 

[oskarsdrum]

The politics of the splitters are quite heterogeneous, but I've of seen any evidence of people wanting to ditch class analysis or embrace intersectionakist feminism wholesale. I do agree that from the StW days the SWP operated a form of implicit identity politics / communism now made explicit by Galloway, for recruitment purposes. If we'd agreed with Counterfire we could've gone with them at any time in the last 3 years, couldn't we? The focus on InterSN discussikn has been about rebuilding and relating to working class organisation, along with what went wrong with the SWP, but everyone knows it's early days yet (as suggested in the tone of the blog postings).

Mind you there is quite a bit of enthusiasm for LU as a potentially promising method - as opposed to the more familiar People's Assembly tack - however whatever your criticisms there may be of that, it's quite different to the same old SWP practice.

 

[Jean-Luc]

What would you suggest people do instead? I wouldn't share a platform with the cunts either. Seems reasonable to me.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should share a platform with them (but they can if they want) but that their meetings should not be broken up. Oppose them politically with arguments, leaflets and debates.

 

[Red Cat]

what on earth is 'moralism' and who gives a crap..

Moralism is judging things as right or wrong without also trying to understand why things may be as they are.

And I give a crap because bbs position may give us some understanding of how hard it must be for those that remain in the SWP to accept what has taken place. I think both bb and I initially found it hard to accept that people we knew would have allowed Martin Smith to remain in the SWP if he had been guilty of sexual harrasment and rape. It just doesn't fit with our experience, which for me as a then 20 something woman, and a woman who had been raped, was the least sexist environment I'd ever encountred. That doesn't make me a cunt, that makes me someone who judges a situation based in part on my own experience, as people on this forum are always suggesting that people do, rather than relying on the authority of others. What moved me from a position of thinking they've fucked up but I don't think that the possible alternatives were obvious ones (note I was not saying alternative repsonses were impossible) to a position of thinking they absolutely got this wrong was the revelation of the age of the woman and the descriptions of the 2011 conference.

 

[andysays]

Moralism is judging things as right or wrong without also trying to understand why things may be as they are.

That seems like a pretty good working definition of moralism, but I suggest that those (not you) who are accusing others on this thread of judging things as wrong without also trying to understand why things may be as they are are either not reading very carefully or have allowed their ideological blinkers to obscure their own judgement

 

[Sean Delaney]

Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but in terms of putting the neo-stalinism of the SWP in focus, this is a fragment from a recent article by W Bonefeld:

"Alex Callinicos (2012) argues for a socialist alternative to austerity. At its base, he argues, socialist anti-austerity has to overcome the entrenchmentof neoliberal dogma in the regulative institutions of the capitalist economy, and he therefore demands institutional transformations to achieve anti-austerity objectives. He urges the left to remember the original response to the crisis of 2008, which, for him, revealed the real possibility of a socialist programme of crisis resolution, one that combined financial nationalisation with socialist fiscal stimuli. In order to re assert the reality of this ‘hastily’ abandoned response to the crisis of 2008, the left anti austerity strategy has to focus on achieving institutional reform, putting banking and credit into public ownership and operating the system of finance under democratic control"


http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/12-4/12-4bonefeld.pdf

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fuck off like you care about this intra trot debate and what's worse you're making it about working class people eating. Jog on.

Interesting that you choose to "defend" your post in such a way. It is about working class people eating. You made it so with your gobshite remark.
And I do care. You know why? I'm almost entirely dependent on benefits. Most of the people where I live are dependent on benefits to some extent. This isn't just some political thing to us, it's life. We can't afford your ideological purity.

 

[treelover]

Just been reading posts on SU about the Glasgow incident from young women who were involved, it seems worse that even the video suggests...

then again, I always knew a fair few people in the SWP were thugs, can't see why posters on here ever joined them..

 

[andysays]

Just been reading posts on SU about the Glasgow incident from young women who were involved, it seems worse that even the video suggests...then again, I always knew a fair few people in the SWP were thugs, can't see why posters on here ever joined them..

Amusingly naive comment on that thread:

"since when do stewards police demonstrators, rather than keep them safe?"

Reminds me of this:

"We welcome everyone to today's demonstration, which we hope will be amongst the biggest London has seen for many years. We are confident that the vast majority of you will keep intact your dignity. A disciplined rally is essential if we are to avoid discrediting ourselves in the eyes of the public and losing the approval of the police. We want to give the media no reason to condemn our campaign by pointing to any over-imaginative acts. To this end, we call on everyone to obey the dictates of the stewards who will be found alongside the police. They will be acting in your interests. They are sensible people – please be sensible with them. Beware of troublemakers – some may be in the crowd with you. If you see any do not hesitate to summon stewards or the police, who, we must remember, are our brothers in work. Comrades! Even in a socialist society we shall still need Specialists-In-Order to combat hooligans and deviants. While it's true that nowadays the police are occasionally over-zealous in their protection of privelege, property and the violence of the world market, the best way of dealing with this is by demanding public accountablity through elected local government or some other representation of submissive community. In the meantime we should recognise that they will only listen to our complaints if we conduct ourselves in the correct manner"

 

[The39thStep]

I wouldn't necessarily believe anything posted on SU.

The last thing I have ever thought of the SWP was that they were thugs. If anything when I was a member it was what the full timers called me and my mates. There can be a time and place politically for thuggish behaviour though normally not against women complaining about the SWP and rape.

So what is the end goal of no platforming the SWP?

 

[andysays]

So what is the end goal of no platforming the SWP?

I think there's a danger of conflating two different things here.

No platforming the SWP is not the same as saying that it's unacceptable (though not surprising, frankly) for stewards on a demo to over-react when some people heckle a speaker who's not a random member of the SWP, but one of those directly involved in the Delta fiasco

 

[sptme]

Time and a place and all that.

When is the right time? How long should they wait? Till after the revolution?
No, women should not be required to keep their mouths shut about rape just to prevent leaders of misogynist left wing sects being embarrassed . It's sexism (and other oppressions) that are divisive not those who oppose them. If you don't want a movement to appear divided don't give people who cover up rape allegations a prominent position.

 

[discokermit]

The last thing I have ever thought of the SWP was that they were thugs.

really? i remember seeing heffernan and nolan and that little clique turning over the bookstall of the radical anthropology group whilst screaming at them and shoving them about. hard to imagine what some people talking about hunter gatherer women synchronising their periods could have done to provoke that.

even a silly thing like us refusing to turn the telly off in the institute, whilst meetings were on at marxism, cos we were watching world cup football, drove the cc to send bennett and mcfarlane to come and shout at us.

when in the is group we leafletted marxism, i had a former comrade, who had sort of mentored me, stand in front of me then deliberately tread on my toes.

now, these all sound pretty minor, but i do think they show how some members get when they feel the organisation is even slightly under attack. sadly it's no surprise to see it's lead to old men pushing around young women for the same sort of reason.

 

[The39thStep]

really? i remember seeing heffernan and nolan and that little clique turning over the bookstall of the radical anthropology group whilst screaming at them and shoving them about. hard to imagine what some people talking about hunter gatherer women synchronising their periods could have done to provoke that.

even a silly thing like us refusing to turn the telly off in the institute, whilst meetings were on at marxism, cos we were watching world cup football, drove the cc to send bennett and mcfarlane to come and shout at us.

when in the is group we leafletted marxism, i had a former comrade, who had sort of mentored me, stand in front of me then deliberately tread on my toes.

now, these all sound pretty minor, but i do think they show how some members get when they feel the organisation is even slightly under attack. sadly it's no surprise to see it's lead to old men pushing around young women for the same sort of reason.

It does all sound minor. When Bambery and others told us to turn the TV off we just said Fuck Right Off

 

[discokermit]

It does all sound minor. When Bambery and others told us to turn the TV off we just said Fuck Right Off

oh yeh, that's what we did. same for the foot treading thing, but to see someone who you thought a good friend and mentor acting like such a cunt over such a trivial threat that the dozen or so of us presented, in a period of growth for them, it's no surprise to see them acting like thugs when under real attack in a period where they are disappearing up their own arsehole.

 

[xslavearcx]

I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative?

Think the problem is that for any additional services provided by non-state agencies gives an impetus to downsize state services whilst being able to state that service delivery stays the same. So from a campaigning point of view, i could see the setting up of such banks as playing into the hands via actually bringing the 'big society' into being. But then again, if the left dont get involved with ameliorative measures, then it will be space thats left open towards right wing xtians and/or liberal thirdsector bollox. Its a tough one thats for sure...

 

[xslavearcx]

It may be quite heavily flawed in various ways but that piece is the first indication that they're seriously looking at the kind of issues the left needs to grapple with if it's to become relevant again.

Ok this swings it for me....

 

[xslavearcx]

"Part of what we’ve found useful with the category of social reproduction is that is it can help us change our perspective on the crisis. We’re used to interpreting the crisis from the perspective of capital. A recession is two quarters of negative growth, etc. So the crisis is a crisis of capital accumulation. But that’s not how we experience the crisis. We experience it as a collapse in living standards, an inability to pay the bills, pay the rent/mortgage, etc. An inability to continue to reproduce ourselves as full participants in 21st century society. In other words, we experience the crisis as a crisis of social reproduction."

/quote]

God what a lot of pish!

 

[xslavearcx]

what on earth is 'moralism' and who gives a crap..

As long as it aint bourgiouse moralism its ok with me...

 

[chilango]

When is the right time? How long should they wait? Till after the revolution?
No, women should not be required to keep their mouths shut about rape just to prevent leaders of misogynist left wing sects being embarrassed . It's sexism (and other oppressions) that are divisive not those who oppose them. If you don't want a movement to appear divided don't give people who cover up rape allegations a prominent position.

Tell you what.

Get a squad together and bust up Marxism.

Give Delta and his cronies a proper slap.

(Note I'm not advocating this. Not really. Just find outrage coupled with half measures a bit puzzling)

 

[audiotech]

Most of the SWP members I knew couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag. The "thugs" in the branch I was in were those later described as "squadists" and what a fine bunch they were to stand side by side with. What these upstanding fellas had in common is that they despised with a vengeance bullies of any kind, who had the misfortune, for them at least, of raising their vile politics in company and later wishing they hadn't.

 

[audiotech]

Tell you what.

Get a squad together and bust up Marxism.

Give Delta and his cronies a proper slap.

He won't even be there. His ex partner will I suppose and what would giving her a "proper slap" achieve, apart from whoever was doing it look a complete headcase?