SWP expulsions and squabbles

[benedict]

Apropros of the above, wasn't there talk about making Amy Leather national secretary recently?

 

[emanymton]

Apropos of the above, wasn't there talk about making Amy Leather national secretary recently?

Are you suggesting that Amy Leather is not a giant of revolutionary politics?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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.

"leading members"? Meaning NG? He's on the nc of course but that reminds me of what Frank Rijkaard said of Neil Lennon when he was the boss of the celtic midfield "He's a dog and all teams need a dog." Muzzle required in this case. But then there are a fair few dogs on all sides of this debate, peoples personal style is no autoamtic guide to factional allegiance. As anyone who's listened to the ISO leader Shawki's 'contribution' in the Le Blanc meeting at M2013 can attest.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Are you suggesting that Amy Leather is not a giant of revolutionary politics?

Ok fair dues you just got me to giggle with that.

 

[butchersapron]

"leading members"? Meaning NG? He's on the nc of course but that reminds me of what Frank Rijkaard said of Neil Lennon when he was the boss of the celtic midfield "He's a dog and all teams need a dog." Muzzle required in this case. But then there are a fair few dogs on all sides of this debate, peoples personal style is no autoamtic guide to factional allegiance.

When all you have is dogs, there is always the IS tradition to wrap around you.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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

Mine was too to be fair - I mean, what the fuck does this mean?

...it's bad enough without that part which is at the very ambiguous from my reading of it.

Even I don't know and I wrote it!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

When all you have is dogs, there is always the IS tradition to wrap around you.

Do you actually have any close acquiantances in the swp or do you just make this shit up about them without knowing any? I'm sure you're much more pleasant in person (so I'm told anyhows!) and so are a lot of them

 

[comrade spurski]

re Nick Grant's views re time passing after an allegation has been made...presumably Stuart Hall should not have been found guilty, Jimmy Saville's memory is being defiled and Jim Davidson and Max Clifford etc. should not be investigated.

How can a teacher and a socialist really think that let alone put it into print? Is defending the SWP really worth betraying every principle you had?

 

[benedict]

"leading members"? Meaning NG? He's on the nc of course but that reminds me of what Frank Rijkaard said of Neil Lennon when he was the boss of the celtic midfield "He's a dog and all teams need a dog." Muzzle required in this case. But then there are a fair few dogs on all sides of this debate, peoples personal style is no autoamtic guide to factional allegiance. As anyone who's listened to the ISO leader Shawki's 'contribution' in the Le Blanc meeting at M2013 can attest.

Notice how you're eliding personal style and intellectual substance here, BB. This chap might have the argumentative style of a hound but it is the content of his soundings that have disgusted most posters on here today.

Taking the canine analogy further, an attack dog might be helpful for defensive purposes in certain situations. But when it's gone awol and is tearing heads off neighbourhood chiwawas you've got to wonder whether a muzzle's the thing, or whether you've just totally messed up the training and it's now beyond help.

Back to the case at hand, i.e. is the problem that he said it and therefore needs muzzling because it's impolitic? Or is the greater problem actually that this kind of abhorrent nonsense is being said at all in any forum by members of the loyalist CC faction?

 

[andysays]

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.

The other possibility, of course, is that those who still cannot see this are neither intelligent nor Marxists...

 

[andysays]

re Nick Grant's views re time passing after an allegation has been made...presumably Stuart Hall should not have been found guilty, Jimmy Saville's memory is being defiled and Jim Davidson and Max Clifford etc. should not be investigated.

How can a teacher and a socialist really think that let alone put it into print? Is defending the SWP really worth betraying every principle you had?

I guess it's possible if you're a party member first and foremost, and a teacher and a socialist a very distant second and third, and if your only real principle is therefore to defend the party in any and every situation.

TBH, what would amaze me would be if there was anyone still left in the SWP of whom this wasn't the case.

 

[benedict]

I guess it's possible if you're a party member first and foremost, and a teacher and a socialist a very distant second and third, and if your only real principle is therefore to defend the party in any and every situation.

TBH, what would amaze me would be if there was anyone still left in the SWP of whom this wasn't the case.

It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.

The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.

I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.

 

[andysays]

It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.

The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.

I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.

You know, when you describe it like that, it kind of sounds suspiciously like a religious sect or a cult or something, but I'm sure that can't be right, can it?

 

[benedict]

You know, when you describe it like that, it kind of sounds suspiciously like a religious sect or a cult or something, but I'm sure that can't be right, can it?

Definite affinities, yes, as you suggest.

Without getting into stronger claims about the party's "cult-like" qualities, a debate which has already been had on the thread and about which I am sceptical, I think that organizationally, structurally, there are significant similarities which likely lead to (deeply unhealthy) dynamics that bear a resemblance to those found within religious sects.

 

[benedict]

Soviet Goon Boy has a response from the "Facebook Four" to the latest news. Don't know how seriously to take their stated hopes for organizational recoupment...

We sincerely hope you rise to the challenge that comrades in opposition have presented you with, and conduct a serious and thoroughgoing review into democracy in the party, making the changes to the organisation that must be made in order to prevent the total collapse of what was once, and could be again, the biggest and best revolutionary party on the British left.
Step one of this process needs to full and public apology to the Facebook Four with the option for all four of us to re-join the Socialist Workers Party should we wish to do so. [...] United, we can all begin to rebuild the organisation in the spirit of inclusivity, cooperation and democracy.

They can't be serious, can they?

 

[mutley]

It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.

The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.

I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.

Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.

 

[butchersapron]

Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.

List the stuff you got done then.

 

[butchersapron]

It's always someone elses fault. You are always the perfect militant in chase of a party. Listen to other people.

 

[andysays]

Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.

As long as the something you want done doesn't include dealing anything like properly with the shit arising from a sexual harrasment charge brought against a senior member, I guess

 

[benedict]

Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.

Of course the ideas I posted can't be the whole story. But my experience suggests it isn't complete bollocks. Maybe I was thinking too much of certain friends who remain within the party and loyal to the leadership.

And I agree with most of your characterization of the rest of "the movement" (which is real SWPese, by the way; I'm not even sure what you're referring to but I'm taking it to mean the Left in general) and I agree too that the most committed ground-level activists in various campaigns are frequently SWP members.

None of this, though, negates what I wrote about how the party operates internally, especially with respect to its intellectual division of labour, all of which I stand by and comes from much direct experience.

 

[mutley]

As long as the something you want done doesn't include dealing anything like properly with the shit arising from a sexual harrasment charge brought against a senior member, I guess

We're getting there with that one, you may not have noticed but he's now a formerly senior ex-member

 

[mutley]

List the stuff you got done then.

Built the UAF demo last sat, set up anti-bedroom tax groups, formed the backbone of a number of reasonably stri=ong union branches round my way, that's off the top of my head.

 

[benedict]

On the division of intellectual labour, see how Harman took down Callincos a few years ago in the ISJ for adopting Rawls's theory of justice (in Resources of Critique I believe) with a Marxisant veneer, while Callinicos now calls out others (Seymour) for their eclecticism!

 

[benedict]

We're getting there with that one, you may not have noticed but he's now a formerly senior ex-member

Draw a line under it and move on? What about the party culture that allowed that to happen? And allowed the standing ovations and stomping of feet? And allows the MA scholarship fundraising?

ETA: I'm not suggesting you're saying it's time to move on, mutley.

 

[mutley]

Of course the ideas I posted can't be the whole story. But my experience suggests it isn't complete bollocks. Maybe I was thinking too much of certain friends who remain within the party and loyal to the leadership.

And I agree with most of your characterization of the rest of "the movement" (which is real SWPese, by the way; I'm not even sure what you're referring to but I'm taking it to mean the Left in general) and I agree too that the most committed ground-level activists in various campaigns are frequently SWP members.

None of this, though, negates what I wrote about how the party operates internally, especially with respect to its intellectual division of labour, all of which I stand by and comes from much direct experience.

There is unfortunately, a nugget of truth in this, but the gut feeling for me about why I'm still in is still what I said above. In terms of the intellectual development of members, I think that the current shake-up will get loads more members reading properly and engaging with analysis of the world today. The stuff on the oppositional blog (variable quality though it is) provides some evidence of that

 

[butchersapron]

Built the UAF demo last sat, set up anti-bedroom tax groups, formed the backbone of a number of reasonably stri=ong union branches round my way, that's off the top of my head.

The SWP did that? No matter what you'll be punching above your weight.

 

[mutley]

Draw a line under it and move on? What about the party culture that allowed that to happen? And allowed the standing ovations and stomping of feet? And allows the MA scholarship fundraising?

ETA: I'm not suggesting you're saying it's time to move on, mutley.

cheers for the edit. The party culture will need more attention, but I don't think it'll ever be quite the same again. People wanna give MS cash that's their affair. Anyway, off to bed now cheers folks

 

[butchersapron]

cheers for the edit. The party culture will need more attention, but I don't think it'll ever be quite the same again. People wanna give MS cash that's their affair. Anyway, off to bed now cheers folks

Why not? The boss just told you that nothing has changed. You're going to impose it on them are you?

 

[benedict]

cheers for the edit. The party culture will need more attention, but I don't think it'll ever be quite the same again. People wanna give MS cash that's their affair. Anyway, off to bed now cheers folks

Genuine question: what attention or changes do you think the party culture needs?

 

[discokermit]

Genuine question: what attention or changes do you think the party culture needs?