SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Louis MacNeice]

That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.

The general problem isn't one of sexual predation; it is more thorough going organisational and political crisis than that. The evidence of this is in there to a degree in the initial abuse, written through as it is with the imbalance of power inherent in the SWP's vanguardism; but where it really come out and continues to manifest itself is in the 'fuck up of epic proportions'. What makes reading your contributions so odd is the all too apparent disconnect between your ability to recognize the scale of the train wreck, and steadfast refusal to blame those who were responsible for running the railway.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[belboid]

Rosen has resigned from being a non-member of the SWP:

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=tw

his reply to what sounds like a drunken rant from Nick Grant is fun, tho Grants attempts at arguments are so piss poor ('the details were old...so we shouldn't have bothered hearing it'! the complainants are 'female dominated') that it cant have taken him too long

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/trenchant-reply-from-swp-loyalist.html

 

[Before Theory]

That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.

After 11 years in the SWP I still don't think there was a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership, so for the first time ever I will agree with Apology Boy, however the leadership's reaction to the allegations against Smith was not a "one off fuck up", on the contrary it was an orchestrated and carefully executed campaign to defend their man at any cost.

It was a 4 yr long "fuck up" that involved meetings and briefings and smears against the original young woman. It involved CC members scurrying around the country spreading disinformation about her, that she was "out to get" Smith, that she had mental health problems and wasn't to be believed, that she was connected to Counterfire or the Scots, that Smith was the victim in all this.

I had "socialist" men and women repeat "Sun" style editorials about female sexuality to me because they wanted to discredit the woman and those who supported her.

There is also the small matter of the other Smith who attacked a number of women but only got a 2 yr suspension because the CC knew the Delta case was immanent and didn't want to set a precedent by being too harsh about his punishment.

So sorry Apology Boy, you can't rewrite history, the SWP sacrificed it's principles and actively defended someone who they would have (quite rightly) hung out to dry had he not been their National Secretary.

 

[belboid]

Point 3 explains why the majority of the party won't be swayed.

really? I think the majority of remaining SWP agree with it actually. There is certainly widespread agreement that the SWP is not 'the party' - even Callinicos has given up pretending that it is, or is about to be. Most of the remaining opposition have voiced explicit doubts about the party's structures and organising methods. the benefit of hindsight does show that the move from IS to SWP was, if not 'presumptuous', then grossly over-optimistic.

 

[butchersapron]

his reply to what sounds like a drunken rant from Nick Grant is fun, tho Grants attempts at arguments are so piss poor ('the details were old...so we shouldn't have bothered hearing it'! the complainants are 'female dominated') that it cant have taken him too long

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/trenchant-reply-from-swp-loyalist.html

This from a leading loyalist:

I think should have happened, was for the SWP DC to refuse to hear the case. The details were apparently a few years old and if true should have been reported to the police long ago. To do that however may well have opened similar floodgates of abuse.

That's astonishing. He thinks the matter should have been handled by the police, but also doesn't think this should have happened because that contained the very real possibility of a flood of other police-worthy abuse claims. So, 1) politically and practically confused 2) revealing top loyalist thinking that this is actually the tip of the iceberg 3)thereby offering a justification for the cover up. God, and i've only read the first few lines.

edit: just missed 4) allegations should have been reported to the police if true, but how would he establish if they are true (and why it is his responsibility to do so?) given that the DC should have refused to deal with it). Jesus, these are the people the swp membership has elected as its best representatives, it's best thinkers? It's best tacticians?

edit: have read the whole thing now, and the comments. That is by turns appalling
pathetic and revealing. That sort of rubbish attempted bullying could only effect a party and membership full of politically and personally unconfident people used to be told the line from above (leaving aiside terminal confusion over the actual points he tries to make) - that membership elected this person to the leading national body.

edit: one more as this gets worse the more that i think about it - if he thinks there is a possible hidden flood of police-worthy sexual abuse claims what does he suggests be done about this? Nothing? He seems remarkably relaxed with the possibility that there is loads of sexual abuse going on within the party as long as it doesn't effect the existence of the party. Not so much concerned with those who may have been abused or the possibility that it's still going on.

 

[andysays]

The general problem isn't one of sexual predation; it is more thorough going organisational and political crisis than that. The evidence of this is in there to a degree in the initial abuse, written through as it is with the imbalance of power inherent in the SWP's vanguardism; but where it really come out and continues to manifest itself is in the 'fuck up of epic proportions'. What makes reading your contributions so odd is the all too apparent disconnect between your ability to recognize the scale of the train wreck, and steadfast refusal to blame those who were responsible for running the railway.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[andysays]

This from a leading loyalist:

That's astonishing. He thinks the matter should have been handled by the police, but also doesn't think this should have happened because that contained the very real possibility of a flood of other police-worthy abuse claims. So, 1) politically and practically confused 2) revealing top loyalist thinking that this is actually the tip of the iceberg 3)thereby offering a justification for the cover up. God, and i've only read the first few lines.

edit: just missed 4) allegations should have been reported to the police if true, but how would he establish if they are true (and why it is his responsibility to do so?) given that the DC should have refused to deal with it). Jesus, these are the people the swp membership has elected as its best representatives, it's best thinkers? It's best tacticians?

edit: have read the whole thing now, and the comments. That is by turns appalling
pathetic and revealing. That sort of rubbish attempted bullying could only effect a party and membership full of politically and personally unconfident people used to be told the line from above (leaving aiside terminal confusion over the actual points he tries to make) - that membership elected this person to the leading national body.

Yep, it's difficult to know where to start with the bit you've quoted. Here it is again for those having trouble understanding the multi-facted fuck up this thing has become:

​

I think should have happened, was for the SWP DC to refuse to hear the case. The details were apparently a few years old and if true should have been reported to the police long ago. To do that however may well have opened similar floodgates of abuse.​

It reminds me of a high-court judge (or was it a law lord) arguing that the truth about a police fit-up needs to be kept secret because of the huge dent public confidence in the police would take if it were revealed...

 

[belboid]

It reminds me of a high-court judge (or was it a law lord) arguing that the truth about a police fit-up needs to be kept secret because of the huge dent public confidence in the police would take if it were revealed...

Lord Denning on the Birmingham 6:

"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous.This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

 

[andysays]

Lord Denning on the Birmingham 6:

"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous.This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

That's the one - thanks for providing the exact quote and context

 

[belboid]

That's the one - thanks for providing the exact quote and context

the phrase 'appalling vista' will never leave my head, its just so gob-smackingly 'did he really just say that? Does he realise he just said that?' Its up there with 'It [unemployment]is a price well worth paying' from John Major.

 

[andysays]

Google image search of the phrase "appalling vista" said

Not much of a view, is it...

 

[butchersapron]

the phrase 'appalling vista' will never leave my head, its just so gob-smackingly 'did he really just say that? Does he realise he just said that?' Its up there with 'It [unemployment]is a price well worth paying' from John Major.

Lamont

 

[belboid]

Lamont

curses, you're right!

 

[andysays]

curses, you're right!

See, this is why I only hinted at what I was talking about above, even though I was pretty sure I remembered who was talking and what they were talking about.

i also knew if I got it wrong, one of you smart fuckers would be straight in to correct me

 

[butchersapron]

Just remembered that Grant also wrote this other embarrassing rubbish.

 

[treelover]

the phrase 'appalling vista' will never leave my head, its just so gob-smackingly 'did he really just say that? Does he realise he just said that?' Its up there with 'It [unemployment]is a price well worth paying' from John Major.

Wasn't that Lamont?, but your point stands..

 

[discokermit]

That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.

harman?
rees?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Clearly NG should never ever utter another word on this matter, utterly horrendous.

Good old John Rose has a painful to read email on Rosen's blog which echoes something the prof said to Paul le Blanc months ago on FB. This confidentiality lark will be the death of them.

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/john-rose-re-swp-my-reply.html

 

[bolshiebhoy]

harman?
rees?

Come on, really? we're not talking the same thing at all or if we are then delta isn't as guilty as many clearly believe.

 

[Before Theory]

Pardon my cynicism, but the reason people like John Rose want confidentiality and face to face meetings is not to protect the women involved, it's so they can continue to peddle their "version" of the whole shameful fiasco. They were all blindsided when the SU transcript was released and the appalling questioning by the Disputes Committee about drinking habits etc was revealed. The rest is left blogging history !

 

[SLK]

Pardon my cynicism, but the reason people like John Rose want confidentiality and face to face meetings is not to protect the women involved, it's so they can continue to peddle their "version" of the whole shameful fiasco. They were all blindsided when the SU transcript was released and the appalling questioning by the Disputes Committee about drinking habits etc was revealed. The rest is left blogging history !

That's pretty much what Rosen's reply suggests - though I still don't know why he chose now of all times.

 

[butchersapron]

Rose says:

More recently in the light of important changes that are now underway in the organisation which address all the issues that you raise,

Why would i believe him? What is there that suggest good faith to anyone - inside or not?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Rose says:



Why would i believe him? What is there that suggest good faith to anyone - inside or not?

I'd imagine Rose and others are less interested in passing the u75 belief test and more whether they can win over the opposition. clearly what we see on blogs won't be the only ways they're approaching that.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd imagine Rose and others are less interested in passing the u75 belief test and more whether they can win over the opposition. clearly what we see on blogs won't be the only ways they're approaching that.

The road to victory is clear then.

 

[SpineyNorman]

his reply to what sounds like a drunken rant from Nick Grant is fun, tho Grants attempts at arguments are so piss poor ('the details were old...so we shouldn't have bothered hearing it'! the complainants are 'female dominated') that it cant have taken him too long

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/trenchant-reply-from-swp-loyalist.html

Maybe I misread it but to be fair I got the impression that he was saying the DC was female dominated - in the sense that this was a good thing. I've only really skimmed it though so could well be wrong.

Edit: Not defending any of it, just think it's bad enough without that part which is at the very ambiguous from my reading of it.

 

[belboid]

Maybe I misread it but to be fair I got the impression that he was saying the DC was female dominated - in the sense that this was a good thing. I've only really skimmed it though so could well be wrong.

Edit: Not defending any of it, just think it's bad enough without that part which is at the very ambiguous from my reading of it.

actually, I think you're right, just badly written (uhh, him not you!)

 

[butchersapron]

Clearly NG should never ever utter another word on this matter, utterly horrendous.

Good old John Rose has a painful to read email on Rosen's blog which echoes something the prof said to Paul le Blanc months ago on FB. This confidentiality lark will be the death of them.

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/john-rose-re-swp-my-reply.html

What about the fact that the SWP has leading members who think like this and clearly haven't been challenged on this sort of thought internally? Or maybe they foster this sort of approach? Just saying he (NG) shouldn't say it again is doing what he does. It just ends up being a way to get away with with IT, rather than dealing with IT.

 

[benedict]

That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.

Kind of illustrates the point. To try to explain the events of recent years as the product either of "rotten apples" or "cock-up not conspiracy" is equally redundant. The third option as Louis suggests is a serious analysis of what caused this situation. It's just implausible to say mistakes were made amidst goodwill all round. Why were decisions made, by whom, to what end? How did a membership of the "best revolutionary fighters" swallow what they did for so long? Why do buffoons like this Grant chap continue spouting this nonsense? It can't all be a screw-up. There are clearly ruinous political issues that have allowed this to precipitate. It's amazing that intelligent Marxists can't see this.

 

[butchersapron]

Birchall has just, by retweeting it. made it a flag around which leninists in the party can rally.

 

[benedict]

It reminds me of something that came up in the discussion of autonomism on another thread, by BB actually, who agreed that the political level of SW was appallingly low and suggested that this was good for a couple of months but you'd really worry if leading cadres were so unsophisticated. Well, take a look at today's CC and loyalists - and actually much of the opposition's discussion. The kind of unthinking Marxism-by-numbers you find in SW is just rampant. Why is this? Why is the political level of so many members so low? Why has theorizing so long been parceled off to a narrow slice of academic Bolsheviks? These questions bear importantly on the overall ruinous dynamics of the party, I think.