Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

On TV and in film, the working class is usually portrayed, even by sympathetic writers, as consisting mostly of emotionally unstable characters who can't articulate their thoughts without resorting to some degree of violence.

Yeah, I know, it makes me so angry I want to shout and smash things, and then scream about how nobody loves my beautiful angelic kids as much as I do, before sobbing uncontrollably.

I mean, did anyone see Eastenders at the weekend...
 
Yow, that's a problem for the SWP - any feeling what the shouty row was about ?
Trying to get more info this week. I think from talking to a few people over the weekend that there are a lot of people still in the party who are going to use this as the first port of call whenever there is any dispute (or possibly any discussion at all)- and i mean both hard loyalists who will wheel it out and opposition who will throw it back in their face. This thing is festering there under the skin - one two many bubos!.
 
quality roster of 4 Marxism speakers announced, including a man who by his own admission "is one of the best known Marxist writers today"... http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm

All four are either loyalists or very close indeed to the party: Alex Callinicos, Louise Raw, Gigi Ibrahim, Judith Orr.

At this rate is it even worth the AWL picketing it?
 
All four are either loyalists or very close indeed to the party: Alex Callinicos, Louise Raw, Gigi Ibrahim, Judith Orr.

At this rate is it even worth the AWL picketing it?
orangemen-bowler_1944273i.jpg

four loyalists recently
 
bonkers letter from Mark fisher in this weeks Weakly worker, I don't know whats worse his political points or the behviour of the AWL activists he is describing.

Bogey Bowler

During a recent trip to Sheffield, a comrade recounted a weird episode that highlighted for me some of the absurdities - and real dangers - that are implicit in the ‘safe space’ scaremongering currently being whipped up by sections of the left.
My comrade and two members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty - female and male - were leafleting a government building in the centre of the city on an employment victimisation case. Things were proceeding as these things generally do until Maxine Bowler - prominent Socialist Workers Party activist and central committee loyalist - pitched up and disappeared into the building.
The female AWL comrade was instantly alarmed: “What’s she doing here?” she asked, clearly disconcerted. “Er, she probably has a meeting here,” someone said. The AWL comrade was not reassured at all, however, that comrade Bowler must surely have some legitimate business on the premises and claimed that comrade Bowler’s individual presence in this large building made her feel “not safe”: here was a ‘rape denier’ - she is a member of the ‘rape denying’ SWP disputes committee, after all. This was no flippant remark: I’m told that the AWL comrade was obviously upset and appeared at one point to be on the verge of tears. So I’m certainly not questioning her sincerity here; quite another thing is the supposed threat that Maxine Bowler represents to other women. Seriously, what did the AWLer think comrade Bowler’s presence portended?
Perhaps the ‘sleeper’ male rapists amongst the hundreds working in the building would suddenly be activated when they spotted Maxine in the lift, knowing that they could now assault women in their workplace and then scuttle along to this SWP comrade for an alibi and a character reference? Was it perhaps being suggested that comrade Bowler herself represented some sort of physical threat to the women there? Really, what nonsense - and potentially dangerous nonsense.
At one point, incredibly, the AWLer actually proposed that security staff be approached to deal with comrade Bowler! Did she want this SWPer expelled from the building? Should a posse of vigilant guards have shadowed this dangerous fiend around until her business was concluded, then firmly deposit her onto the pavement? Why muck about? Why not simply phone the police and make the world a marginally ‘safer space’ for women by having Bowler (along with the rest of the SWP majority) banged up?
Let’s stop this, comrades. The problem is not that comrade Bowler - or the revolutionary organisation to which she is loyal - deny rape, despite the shockingly badly bungled and crassly insensitive way a recent accusation was handled by the leadership and its disputes committee. The problem is that the bureaucratic centralist regime that holds sway in the SWP - with the consent and connivance of comrades like Maxine Bowler - disempowers the membership and creates an inner-party regime where gross abuses of power by an unaccountable apparatus (yes, including rape) are made potentially easier.
Incidentally, this is the point of the ‘Rape is not the problem’ headline in our March 14 issue that some comrades have baulked at. The problem with the SWP is its semi-Stalinist internal regime, not a generalised culture that pooh-poohs the notion that women are sexually assaulted: a rape accusation was a trigger to the crisis, not the cause. We need to call for a democratic revolution in organisations like the SWP and use every opportunity we can grab to engage with its members to agitate for it. Its exile from the workers’ movement would be a disaster - for all of us, actually.
I’m sure some comrades will accuse me of ‘not taking rape seriously’, of trivialising the real distress of this AWLer or of using language that unconsciously reveals sexist assumptions. I flatly reject all that. In fact, it seems clear to me that politics of the sort that engender the type of brittle, irrational and childlikeresponse of this individual AWL woman to the deadly serious question of rape are actually the trivialising element in all of this.
What is certainly not serious is to react to the appearance of ‘bogey woman’ Bowler - or any other SWPer, people who are our comrades in a common movement - as if the wicked witch of the north has just touched down at the head of a squadron of flying monkeys.

Mark Fischer
London
 
bonkers letter from Mark fisher in this weeks Weakly worker, I don't know whats worse his political points or the behviour of the AWL activists he is describing.
well, it probably never happened at all like he describes. I can guess who the AWL woman is tho, one of their shittier members.
 
Further the Hedley case - this account by Caroline's RMT rep gives a very different picture to that of Steve's own statement and the SP ECs version:
http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.c...ase-still-to-answer-andy-littlechild-rmt-rep/

Piss off you fucking snake, there is no "SP ECs version".
There is a statement about a former high profile member who resigned quite publicly. It makes no judgement on who is in the right in this disputed case. It is in no way a version of events.

People are free to think the statement was factually wrong or ill advised. I've also seen SP members say stupid shite about the case online, neither of those things mean the SP leadership believes one party over the other as you dishonestly imply
 
Well given that the EC statement refers to his having "no case to answer" and links only to his interpretation of events, it's hardly an even handed accounts that sticks closely to undisputed facts of the case.

No point lashing out at people who object to this.
 
I presume that if there's any chance of Gary Younge, David Harvey, Michael Rosen....speaking then that'd have been announced by now. however I can imagine that a dreadful Marxism has already been 'priced in' as they say to remaining members' expectations.
 
wading into allegations of DV with an utterly one-sided statement is worse than 'ill advised'. a healthy left group would undertake serious self-criticism as to how such a thing could happen. (albeit there are big differences with the main subject of this thread)
 
Well given that the EC statement refers to his having "no case to answer" and links only to his interpretation of events, it's hardly an even handed accounts that sticks closely to undisputed facts of the case.

No point lashing out at people who object to this.

I'm not lashing out at you because you object to the statement. Oskarsdrum also objects to the statement, wrongly in my view, but at least he/she is honest about his/her objections.

I'm lashing out at you because you are a dishonest, slimy little creep who uses every opportunity this very serious case presents to negatively distort the SP's position.

Nowhere does the SP statement say Steve Hedley has no case to answer. It was reporting what the SP believed to be the outcome of the RMT investigation. This does not at all imply the SP leadership believes he has no case to answer. The position has been all along that the SP believes allegations of DV should be taken seriously, that women making such allegations should be treated sympathetically (as the statement makes clear and you somehow forgot to take into account before you came slinking in trying to insinuate all sorts of shite). The SP does not know the facts of the case and has left judgement of such to the proper authorities.

THAT is the SP "version of events"
 
wading into allegations of DV with an utterly one-sided statement is worse than 'ill advised'. a healthy left group would undertake serious self-criticism as to how such a thing could happen. (albeit there are big differences with the main subject of this thread)

I'm sorry you feel the statement was one sided. As far as I know the intention was to try to put forward a balanced position once all investigations were complete. Clearly following Andy Littlechilds statement there will be more investigations.

I honestly don't think the statement trys to take sides but of course people are entitled to have different views on a subject that is highly contested.
 
I'm lashing out at you because you.... who uses every opportunity this very serious case presents to negatively distort the SP's position.
Not at all, I acknowledged that it was a difficult case. I'm just disappointed by the lack of balance in the statement
 
Back
Top Bottom