Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

SpineyNorman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really sorry didn't see your "wasn't" above, thought you were saying they did. Clearly a lot on here do though.

Not saying it was a snap decision at all, he clearly has been building to it and this huge mess pushed him over the edge. It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart. If that's a smear it's not meant to be, just how I read his letter. My point is we all need to slow down a little because there will be many who have less truck with his 'marxism has a basic sexism problem' and will suck this up and move on. Sorry if that sounds cynical.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Really sorry didn't see your "wasn't" above, thought you were saying they did. Clearly a lot on here do though.

Not saying it was a snap decision at all, he clearly has been building to it and this huge mess pushed him over the edge. It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart. If that's a smear it's not meant to be, just how I read his letter. My point is we all need to slow down a little because there will be many who have less truck with his 'marxism has a basic sexism problem' and will suck this up and move on. Sorry if that sounds cynical.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by slow down a little.

Precisely which part of the core politics has he not taken to heart?

Of course there will be many who have no truck whatsoever with what he's saying - and I suspect there'll be a big crossover with the 'liar liar' crowd. Not sure why you thought you'd need to point that out though. And he's really not saying Marxism has a basic sexism problem. In fact at one point he explicitly says the exact opposite.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Really sorry didn't see your "wasn't" above, thought you were saying they did. Clearly a lot on here do though.

Not saying it was a snap decision at all, he clearly has been building to it and this huge mess pushed him over the edge. It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart. If that's a smear it's not meant to be, just how I read his letter. My point is we all need to slow down a little because there will be many who have less truck with his 'marxism has a basic sexism problem' and will suck this up and move on. Sorry if that sounds cynical.
Click to expand...

What you are doing here is the same thing the party hacks say about all who recant, and what they probably said when you left "never took the core politics to heart" FFS :rolleyes:
 
bolshiebhoy said:
. 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.
Click to expand...

typical Stalinist misrepresentation through half-quote

he said
Marxist and feminist theory would surely agree, however, that in a sexist society, sexism is a constant danger in any organisation, no matter what its politics
Click to expand...

ie. unless you believe that a specific form of organisation somehow miraculously insulates you from prejudices in the rest of society, then it is at least fair to say that *whatever the potential political differences given between certain articulations of each tradition* both share a recognition that imbalances of gender power are a factor.

At no point does he say that marxism and feminism are the same thing or have identical claims.
 
Twice he feels the need to describe the recent recruits from the movement as militant anti-sexists. As opposed to what? The only slightly anti-sexist and maybe suspect old timers in the party? And these militant anti-sexists discovered a generic problem of sexism in the SWP which everyone else had ignored. He tells us he's going to think and write more about how sexism and power and democracy interact. Cool. But wherever that takes him it won't be to a Marxist understanding of women's oppression. Because the starting point for a Marxist approach isn't the abstract question of 'democracy' or 'power' upon which 'Marxism and feminism would agree'. The fact he starts the sentence that way betrays the desire to merge two completely incompatible ways of thinking. Now many people will agree with him that you can talk about these questions in terms of power structures, democracy etc in the abstract and that these issues cut across lines of class politics. And they have every right to as does he. All I'll keep repeating is that that approach to the question is totally at odds with the basic IS/Cliffite whatever you want to call it approach to these issues that was hammered out in those debates around Women's Voice etc that he regards as weird historical irrelevances. Again that's his right but it does show his lack of understanding of the tradition he's walking away from. If saying that makes me Uncle Joe Stalin himself then pass me the ice pick but it just seems obvious to me.
 
Spanky Longhorn said:
What you are doing here is the same thing the party hacks say about all who recant, and what they probably said when you left "never took the core politics to heart" FFS :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nope it's horses for courses. In my case I tried to build a political case for leaving and was rightly laughed at by the non hack guy who tried to stop me going who quite rightly told me I didnt really believe the political differences I was concocting as an excuse. His actual diagnosis was lack of stamina which I translated as an insufficient desire to keep banging my head against a wall for a revolution I didn't think would come.
 
two sheds said:
Sounds to me like a disagreement as to whether the bread and wine actually transmute into the body and blood of Christ or not.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it does. And I know the trend has been for the SWP not to emphasise these 'theological' differences with feminism and other alternatives to Marxism and instead to open the doors and hope you can work them out 'in the struggle that teaches'. But at some point you have to address them and it sounds like a layer of younger members are coming to different conclusions to the old core cadre. Most people outside the SWP will see that as a good thing which is dandy. But let's not pretend this is some straightforward battle between good and evil with the cc clearly in the evil corner. That reduces serious political differences to a question of who is the nicer person.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
I'm sure it does. And I know the trend has been for the SWP not to emphasise these 'theological' differences with feminism and other alternatives to Marxism and instead to open the doors and hope you can work them out 'in the struggle that teaches'. But at some point you have to address them and it sounds like a layer of younger members are coming to different conclusions to the old core cadre. Most people outside the SWP will see that as a good thing which is dandy. But let's not pretend this is some straightforward battle between good and evil with the cc clearly in the evil corner. That reduces serious political differences to a question of who is the nicer person.
Click to expand...

Having the discussion is clearly fair enough, but it's a separate discussion to criticising Watson for what he wrote.

Sorry to continue arguing by analogy but it's like the Council of Bishops being criticised for hushing up and mishandling a rape accusation and someone saying about the person criticising them 'ah well he was never really a Catholic you know'.

And they'd have a real reason to hush it up - the SWP is only concerned with the revolutionary struggle - with the Catholic church you're endangering the eternal souls of the whole human race.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
I'm sure it does. And I know the trend has been for the SWP not to emphasise these 'theological' differences with feminism and other alternatives to Marxism and instead to open the doors and hope you can work them out 'in the struggle that teaches'. But at some point you have to address them and it sounds like a layer of younger members are coming to different conclusions to the old core cadre. Most people outside the SWP will see that as a good thing which is dandy. But let's not pretend this is some straightforward battle between good and evil with the cc clearly in the evil corner. That reduces serious political differences to a question of who is the nicer person.
Click to expand...
i'm not entirely clear on how feminism is an 'alternative' to marxism in the same way that eg anarchism is an alternative to marxism. what other alternatives to marxism did you have in mind as well?

oh, and being evil doesn't stop someone being nice. you're confused bb.
 
Pickman's model said:
i'm not entirely clear on how feminism is an 'alternative' to marxism in the same way that eg anarchism is an alternative to marxism.
Click to expand...
Feminism jumps from biological determinism to idealism and back again. Whereas Marxism has a materialist analysis of oppression. Totally different worldviews. This stuff used to be bread and butter in the SWP too but I suspect reading Tom's piece that he never came across the argument before. Maybe SW journos aren't encouraged to read the ISJ and he never saw Judith Orr's excellent recent article on Marxism vs Feminism.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Feminism jumps from biological determinism to idealism and back again. Whereas Marxism has a materialist analysis of oppression. Totally different worldviews. This stuff used to be bread and butter in the SWP too but I suspect reading Tom's piece that he never came across the argument before. Maybe SW journos aren't encouraged to read the ISJ and he never saw Judith Orr's excellent recent article on Marxism vs Feminism.
Click to expand...

So the likes of Sheila Rowbotham are just plain wrong to describe themselves as Marxist feminists then?

And he never said they were the same - he said that on one particular point the two would converge. I agree with him as it goes.
 
For a Cliffite yes Rowbotham is also guilty of idealism. That's common currency for all IS folk, Lindsey German was making that point in an article in 06 and I'm pretty sure she'd still be arguing it now in Counterfire. Again that may sound very doctrinaire of Cliffites - they're effectively saying only they get the way womens oppression works and all other left currents are guilty of idealism - but it's the way the tendency works and blurring these distinctions is what gets you labelled a feminist in Cliffite circles. Tom doesn't understand that which is why I doubt he ever really got the nature of the party he'd joined. That's not a moral judement or an attempt to denigrate him it's just something that's plain as day from his letter.

Every decade or so the IS has these debates again. In the 70's the argument was about separate womens organisation. In the 80's we had it around whether men benefit from patriarchy. This 'militant anti-sexist' wave is the latest attempt to blur the lines between feminism and marxism. The problem for people like Tom and the reason there was a centralist faction at conference who tried to bridge the gap betwen the outright opposition and the cc is that old soaks in the party who've been through these debates before and may have an issue with the internal regime will read his letter and react to it through the prism of previous feminist debates. And they'll agree with the cc when it identifies the ideoloigcal 'error' Tom is making on his way out the door. Whether that outweighs their uneasiness with some of the heavy handedness of the cc will determine how many follow him out.
 
(Posting from my phone so sorry for any errors)

Sorry BB but I think you are wrong to cast this issue as some form of dispute between a true Marxist old guard and a new crop who are soft on feminism. You may well be right about Tom, but I don't think the same can be said of all those in opposition.

The 5 main issues I have with this case our as follows.

1, A charge of Rape was brought against a senior member of the party and that charge was investigated and judged by a group of people who in their own words considered him a friend. No matter how hard they try to be objective it simply cannot be done.

2, From reading the transcript and hearing an account of someone who was present at conference it appears that the line of questioning to the two women strayed into territory that the SWP has frequently and rightly condemned in the bourgeois courts. In fact I served on they jury in a rape trial about a year ago and I would say that the woman involved in that case was treated with more sympathy and respect by the court and police than the SWP has shown here.

3, That the accused was able to see the evidence against him in advance while the woman making the complaint was not allowed to see his reply in advance.

4, The treatment of the two women involved after making their complaint. Including a least on CC member privately suggestion one or both could be working for the state.

5, The disparity in the treatment of the CC member compared to the treatment of the 4 accused of factionalism who were summarily expelled by a body (the CC) which doesn't even have the authority to do so. Could it be that the DC only exists to rubber stamp decisions already made by the CC . I would be intrested to hear how this is a feminist concern by the way.

I would hope that anyone who calls themselves a marxist or a feminist would agree that this not acceptable. Hell I think most people would agree.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Feminism jumps from biological determinism to idealism and back again. Whereas Marxism has a materialist analysis of oppression. Totally different worldviews. This stuff used to be bread and butter in the SWP too but I suspect reading Tom's piece that he never came across the argument before. Maybe SW journos aren't encouraged to read the ISJ and he never saw Judith Orr's excellent recent article on Marxism vs Feminism.
Click to expand...
I think what you're trying (& failing) to say is that there are an array of authors / thinkers in the field of feminism who do not agree with each other, between whom there are great differences, and who do not produce a coherent whole: whereas marxism as revealed by lenin, trotsky and the late great tony cliff is the answer to human ills.
 
Spanky Longhorn said:
Yes the debate about feminisim is simply a CC distraction technique.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an attempt to portray this is an ideological issue, and to paint those who are critical of the party line as having erred politically. Whereas, actually, it is (or should be) about the party's crass mishandling of a very serious allegation made by one of its members. Regardless of your views on marxism or feminism, anyone in their right mind can see the glaring procedural failings in the way this case was handled.

It must be the case that Smith could see them too. I can't help but think that it I was accused of rape, and if I was innocent, I would be keen to have my name cleared by a panel which could be trusted by all parties. I wouldn't want my mates to be the decision makers; I'd be pushing for an independent panel. Obviously, if I was guilty, I'd go with my mates, as there'd be more chance of getting off. ( Not saying he is, though; just making the observation.)
 
emanymton said:
2, From reading the transcript and hearing an account of someone who was present at conference it appears that the line of questioning to the two women strayed into territory that the SWP has frequently and rightly condemned in the bourgeois courts. In fact I served on they jury in a rape trial about a year ago and I would say that the woman involved in that case was treated with more sympathy and respect by the court and police than the SWP has shown here..
Click to expand...

This whole rejection of "bourgeois justice" line is just bullshit though isn't it? In fact to me it smacks of the same sort of idealism that they are accusing everyone else of.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the process of bourgeois justice, e.g. having rules of evidence and disclosure of evidence by both sides, having that evidence heard and evaluated by a jury of your peers (but not anyone who has a personal relationship with you) etc etc etc. In fact theses things are all pretty good ways of helping to untangle events.

What makes bourgeois justice a problem is not the process - but the fact that somehow it is supposed to uphold some grand, objective, "real" Justice when the wider society in which it operates is massively unequal and exploitative and imposes completely different lives on its members. Bourgeois justice fails because it can't deal with any of that - it assumes a completely fictional equality of everyone who comes before it.

This means it also inevitably fails in its attempts to resolve cases - it can't be restorative and reformative and it has to be vindictive and punitive because in the end it's about slapping down the poor, or at the very least, indulging in the fiction that they are presented with the identical choices and problems that the rich are.

But someone who has been the victim of an assault, properly supported through the "bourgeois courts" will probably get a fair hearing, as will the alleged perpetrator (although in reality "proper support" will come to you in proportion to your social and economic status).

Slagging off "bourgeois justice" in this case is so crap, I can only see it as having been used to bully the accuser into not going to the police. It just doesn't stand up.
 
co-op said:
This whole rejection of "bourgeois justice" line is just bullshit though isn't it? In fact to me it smacks of the same sort of idealism that they are accusing everyone else of.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the process of bourgeois justice, e.g. having rules of evidence and disclosure of evidence by both sides, having that evidence heard and evaluated by a jury of your peers (but not anyone who has a personal relationship with you) etc etc etc. In fact theses things are all pretty good ways of helping to untangle events.

What makes bourgeois justice a problem is not the process - but the fact that somehow it is supposed to uphold some grand, objective, "real" Justice when the wider society in which it operates is massively unequal and exploitative and imposes completely different lives on its members. Bourgeois justice fails because it can't deal with any of that - it assumes a completely fictional equality of everyone who comes before it.

This means it also inevitably fails in its attempts to resolve cases - it can't be restorative and reformative and it has to be vindictive and punitive because in the end it's about slapping down the poor, or at the very least, indulging in the fiction that they are presented with the identical choices and problems that the rich are.

But someone who has been the victim of an assault, properly supported through the "bourgeois courts" will probably get a fair hearing, as will the alleged perpetrator (although in reality "proper support" will come to you in proportion to your social and economic status).

Slagging off "bourgeois justice" in this case is so crap, I can only see it as having been used to bully the accuser into not going to the police. It just doesn't stand up.
Click to expand...

I think this starts off as a very promising post but it gets confused primarily in that bourgeois justice isn't necessarily evaluated by peers, some countries use a tribunal system, others a single magistrate or judge for example, there are panel systems. Equally bourgeois justice can be restorative and reformative and doesn't have to be vindictive and punitive particularly at the 'lower end' of criminal acts . However where you are absolutely right is that it assumes a 'a completely fictional equality of everyone who comes before it.' and it is mainly a product of property relations within wider society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
T
SWP trash AWL stall at Marxism, accusations of violent threats
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Magnus McGinty
Magnus McGinty
Magnus McGinty
Are the SWP a State Asset?
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Beats & Pieces
B
P
'SWP urge members to get involved with 'Momentum'
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
7K
J Ed
J Ed
Das Uberdog
Former SWP members plan to sabotage Steve Hedley's TUSC campaign
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
234
Views
15K
articul8
articul8
Back
Top Bottom