SWP expulsions and squabbles

[discokermit]

this is quite interesting, http://libcom.org/blog/edges-trotskyism-some-ones-who-left-swp-12072013

 

[oskarsdrum]

was just about to post that up discokermit! interesting indeed. good recognition of Seymour's strengths there and some other stuff. though I would've liked to read some criticisms of ISN that go beyond "they're still a bit Trotskyist".

 

[Das Uberdog]

Thing is, bolshie, you talk as if the party hasn't been based for at least the last couple decades on a perpetual cycle of student recruitment and disillusioned burn-out and departure. Combined with the parasitism and opportunism towards "the movement" at large, the total lack of political education (the one point they seem willing to concede) beyond the thin gruel of the SWP canon, and the opportunist embrace of identity politics, it's a toxic brew.

Yet for the loyalists, it's as if this hasn't been the modus operandi of the party for years; they've remained the staunch class fighters while all around them have been losing their heads with "new ideas". The Counterfire crew wanted to take them down that road, the ISN splitters have fallen into the same eclectic bear-trap, the internal opposition is mollycoddling the youth, the steadfast remain on the straight path. In reality, they've all been treading the same stagnant waters for years.

excellent post. the 'loyalists' can't indefinitely shield themselves from criticism via semi-relevant criticisms of other fractions. not only have they been swimming in the same water, they've been opportunistically rearing and festering the same shit they eventually come to reject. so many of those most deviant from any recognisable class politics in these splinters have splintered from the top, where they'd previously enjoyed protected and even internally influential positions... Clare Solomon, Tom Walker, etc etc...

ETA

tangentially i found it pretty funny that when Tom Walker publically resigned, he noted that when he'd actually delved into the archived SWP theory on feminism in the 80s he'd been surprised at how critical it was, hastening his exit. how he can have been on the paper without ever having actually read party theory was pretty revealing - as was his intuitive revulsion against possibly one of the few defensible theoretical evolutions to turn from the organisation throughout the period

 

[Nigel Irritable]

though I would've liked to read some criticisms of ISN that go beyond "they're still a bit Trotskyist".

You won't get that from Anarchists. Or to be a little more fair, there are very few, rather than no, Anarchists capable of producing something useful about a group like the ISN that won't essentially reiterate eternal Anarchist verities about the original sin of Leninism.

It would be like expecting a group of the Workers Power variety to produce a critique of the Friends of Durutti that went beyond simply awarding gold stars for every step towards Trotskyism and demerits for every Anarchist shibboleth maintained.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

tangentially i found it pretty funny that when Tom Walker publically resigned, he noted that when he'd actually delved into the archived SWP theory on feminism in the 80s he'd been surprised at how critical it was, hastening his exit. how he can have been on the paper without ever having actually read party theory was pretty revealing - as was his intuitive revulsion against possibly one of the few defensible theoretical evolutions to turn from the organisation throughout the period

Do you really think it's that odd that a party journalist hadn't read 30 year old internal debates?

 

[Das Uberdog]

Do you really think it's that odd that a party journalist hadn't read 30 year old internal debates?

it's not surprising - but for an organisation which bases as much of its internal kudos (as it does) on adherence to a canon of theoretical history it's pretty damning.

 

[Das Uberdog]

all of these people used to quote from Tony Cliff books and other internal party literature as the legitimising source for practically every argument... he never even read his own theory and it was his full time job

 

[Nigel Irritable]

all of these people used to quote from Tony Cliff books and other internal party literature as the legitimising source for practically every argument... he never even read his own theory and it was his full time job

He wasn't tasked with developing or even defending theory, but with producing popular journalism. That requires a different, lower, level of familiarity with the sacred texts.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i think it's shameful to play such a prominent role in an organisation and never bother to work out what it is you're defending. i think it reflects badly on him personally that he didn't do so, and also on the opportunism of the organisation in general that despite revering its theoretical legacy so deeply it was happy to recruit the theoretically clueless to full time paid positions

 

[butchersapron]

tangentially i found it pretty funny that when Tom Walker publically resigned, he noted that when he'd actually delved into the archived SWP theory on feminism in the 80s he'd been surprised at how critical it was, hastening his exit. how he can have been on the paper without ever having actually read party theory was pretty revealing - as was his intuitive revulsion against possibly one of the few defensible theoretical evolutions to turn from the organisation throughout the period

Do you need the how explained? This tangential point contains the thing entire. 53--56-->68-->77--et cetera

 

[Nigel Irritable]

i think it reflects badly on him personally that he didn't do so, and also on the opportunism of the organisation in general that despite revering its theoretical legacy so deeply it was happy to recruit the theoretically clueless to full time paid positions

In my experience, the SWP has always recruited junior staff on the basis primarily of enthusiasm, not political understanding. Walker strikes me as having more of a grasp of the SWP's politics than most young fulltimers I've encountered. Which isn't saying much.

 

[discokermit]

In my experience, the SWP has always recruited junior staff on the basis primarily of enthusiasm, not political understanding.

and loyalty. it promotes them on the same basis.

 

[Das Uberdog]

if not loyalty, then political malleability. i was suggested as regional organiser for the NW at one point by several folks from the region but was personally turned down by Delta as "i wasn't trusted" (despite voluntarily working on average about a 15 hour week for the party in this period, whilst working part time and taking A-levels). Michael Lavalette actually described the role at the time as 'working for me' - as the areas' local chieftan.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I got that post on Facebook yesterday from him, but like SLK said its not up today.
Maybe he's retracted it.
Don't know!

Not sure I understand how people think they're helping oppositionists in the swp by sharing fb comments on here that might have been ill judged. All you're doing is making their job harder (and possibly lining them up for a metaphorical kicking) by proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.

 

[killer b]

proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.

this is the one this they have right. don't have a problem with it myself.

 

[discokermit]

Not sure I understand how people think they're helping oppositionists in the swp by sharing fb comments on here that might have been ill judged. All you're doing is making their job harder (and possibly lining them up for a metaphorical kicking) by proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.

bolshie, friend of the opposition.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Thing is, bolshie, you talk as if the party hasn't been based for at least the last couple decades on a perpetual cycle of student recruitment and disillusioned burn-out and departure. Combined with the parasitism and opportunism towards "the movement" at large, the total lack of political education (the one point they seem willing to concede) beyond the thin gruel of the SWP canon, and the opportunist embrace of identity politics, it's a toxic brew.

Yet for the loyalists, it's as if this hasn't been the modus operandi of the party for years; they've remained the staunch class fighters while all around them have been losing their heads with "new ideas". The Counterfire crew wanted to take them down that road, the ISN splitters have fallen into the same eclectic bear-trap, the internal opposition is mollycoddling the youth, the steadfast remain on the straight path. In reality, they've all been treading the same stagnant waters for years.

They ducked the argument with the new recruits, particularily students. That much seems agreed on all sides and Tom Walker's naivety just seems to confirm it. They allowed a parallel and competing set of ideas to co-exist for far too long. Why did they do that? No idea. Maybe it was an over reaction to earlier decades of inward looking 'purity' during the downturn and beyond. Maybe it was a temptation to get rich quick. Dunno. But it was a mistake and now it's being corrected in a very painful way. But their mistake was to agree to disagree, to not openly argue for their own ideas enough. What they didn't do was actually adopt the ideas of the wider movement as their own which is what Counterfire did.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

bolshie, friend of the opposition.

Some of them yes, this particular one definitely.

I think they're barking up the wrong tree ideologically and I hope they lose their fight to 'renew' the organisation. That doesn't mean on a personal level I want to see them (especially the sane ones) backed into a corner or set up by people who think they're helping them but aren't.

 

[Nigel]

Not sure I understand how people think they're helping oppositionists in the swp by sharing fb comments on here that might have been ill judged. All you're doing is making their job harder (and possibly lining them up for a metaphorical kicking) by proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.

He seemed to be alright about it.
Offered to take it off here when he took it off Facebook, was my initiative to blank out said description.
Even thanked me & presupposed comments such as those made by JHE giving me post to reply!

 

[Das Uberdog]

They ducked the argument with the new recruits, particularily students. That much seems agreed on all sides and Tom Walker's naivety just seems to confirm it. They allowed a parallel and competing set of ideas to co-exist for far too long. Why did they do that? No idea. Maybe it was an over reaction to earlier decades of inward looking 'purity' during the downturn and beyond. Maybe it was a temptation to get rich quick. Dunno. But it was a mistake and now it's being corrected in a very painful way. But their mistake was to agree to disagree, to not openly argue for their own ideas enough. What they didn't do was actually adopt the ideas of the wider movement as their own which is what Counterfire did.

they didn't have any ideas, that's the issue. they didn't give a shit about achieving anything concrete in the real world, as evidenced by their total lack of strategy or commitment to any given campaign they involved the party in over the last decade. their canon of theory was just a thread to hold together the organisation, and opportunistically silence dissent in the name of 'the true tradition'. they never 'agreed to disagree', they simply 'agreed' until the inbuilt contradictions within the new trendy bullshit became too severe and autonomous and it had to be cut out. they are swimming in circles, going nowhere and what's more they don't care

 

[tedsplitter]

For what it's worth, Tom Walker was working at the paper because he's a qualified journalist with the ability to write clearly and where necessary edit other writers' submissions, not because of any encyclopaedic knowledge of decades of party debates.

 

[treelover]

Thing is, Das Uberdog, you lectured and hectored plenty of people on here about the SWP's righteous path many many times

then again, sinner repenteth, etc...

 

[bolshiebhoy]

So conference will be early.

 

[SLK]

So conference will be early.

That was a weird one. It's going to be about three weeks early, because it's so urgent. And will now be when loads of people are busy with families and that.

 

[JHE]

No, no, no. It's going to be early. Now that they don't have any students, they can start the meetings in the morning.

 

[BK Double Stack]

Why are they doing this? Pretending they "allowed" the opposition to exist in "pre-conference period" so they can force it to shut down after conference? The opposition has gone quiet...I don't know what difference three weeks makes though.

 

[oskarsdrum]

seems like a logicless reflex move of pure panic. Malcolm Tucker'd give them short shrift.

 

[benedict]

Someone got a link to something on this? Seems like a bizarre move.

Also, why have the opposition gone quiet? Perhaps they just ramping up for a public ideological challenge to the CC faction at Marxism and now they're preparing the groundwork for a political challenge at conference? War of position and war of maneuvre?

 

[J Ed]

I can't wait till they actually sort all of this out and overthrow capitalism

 

[laptop]

I can't wait till they actually sort all of this out and overthrow capitalism

At least then it'll be a piece of piss overthrowing them.