SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Aargh]

I mean 'not compulsory in order to be a Marxist.'

 

[Pickman's model]

isn't it time this thread was put to bed, if for no better reason than it is no longer amusing seeing bolshiebhoy squirm?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

That would be fine except neither Marx, nor Engels, nor many other Marxists held that opinion. It's not what Marx believed perhaps, and definitely not compulsory to be a Marxist. I would say Engels was more of the view that working men are encouraged to make use of their status over women so they have a stake in the system.

The problem being that most of the opposition want to ditch Engels for Vogel. But I guess that's a whole other thread!

 

[Aargh]

This particular line has always struck me as an example of the SWP's fondness for instrumentalist arguments. Or to put it more clearly, their habit of defending theoretical views not on their own merits, but on the basis that they allegedly help avoid problematic political conclusions.

Yes, exactly that, they think it will 'divide the working class.' If you look at the transcript of the notorious conference about the Delta case, the whole thing is introduced by 'remember what the party line is' i.e. we are about the WC and we don't believe 'working men' can exploit women, we can't believe that.

I don't think it's a very good idea to adopt this kind of instrumentalist approach to theory.

I agree, because you can repeat things by rote but it doesn't make it true, and it enables people to see the obvious holes in the argument (that men can benefit from women's oppression by men in many obvious ways) which highlights other holes in the SWP analysis, and it also creates an obstacle between us and the mainstream left.

And we do have to care about keeping people onside or recruitment, or how can we expect them to have a revolution with us?

[quotes]Their avowed non-feminism is a rather different issue, with its roots in arguments in the early women's liberation movement, between people who favoured "women's liberation" and those who favoured "feminism". Nowadays though that argument has been well and truly lost in wider society, and maintaining that you are not a feminist and using the word in a hostile way makes you look like a cranky sexist.[/quote]

I say WL, but it is WL from men's oppression of women. SWP nowadays say 'women's oppression' because it doesn't name the agent.

All this is pretty theoretical, but forms some of the ideology of the sexual cases- that the SWP are allegedly the party of the working class, which traditionally to an extent= men. 'Remember that we are the party of the WC' i.e. remember we can't admit that a man in our party might benefit from his position of power over women, as a man. Nor does anyone of course have power over anyone else in the SWP, that they can abuse.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

This particular line has always struck me as an example of the SWP's fondness for instrumentalist arguments. Or to put it more clearly, their habit of defending theoretical views not on their own merits, but on the basis that they allegedly help avoid problematic political conclusions.

See now this is why Ortho Trots shouldn't do philosophy. Instrumentalism? Not at all. One of the more fruitful results of the Prof's slow trawl through academia is his salvaging of Lakatos' philosophy of science as a guide to good Marxist science. The scientific efficacy of a theory for Lakatos is in its ability to predict novel facts at the same time as explaining the ones it was originally designed to explain. The novel facts here being workers revolts against Stalinism for example. But that really is another thread although the Prof sums it up quite well here: http://www.marxists.de/trotism/callinicos/5-2_reorient.htm

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I say WL, but it is WL from men's oppression of women. SWP nowadays say 'women's oppression' because it doesn't name the agent.

Now there I part company with you because I think that positing "men" as the supra-historical, pan-global, collective agent of women's oppression makes sense only as a moral claim, and not as an analytical one. It's also a distinct issue from that of whether even otherwise oppressed or exploited men are capable of benefiting in some ways from the oppression of women. Although both the SWP and many of their opponents often argue as if one automatically flows from the other - in fact it should be a statement of the obvious that we can all benefit from things we are not personally responsible for.

which traditionally to an extent= men.

We probably don't disagree about this, but it might be better to say that the working class has sometimes been treated by some socialists as if it consisted entirely or almost entirely of men. In reality the working class has always included vast numbers of women (and children).

 

[belboid]

Fair enough to dismiss my post as irrelevant but how on earth are you able to say that my post showed a "misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rapes occur" is a complete mystery to me. I have never addressed this question because ... well to be honest it seems irrelevant.

Rape occurs when one person performs a sexual act on some one else without permission...(I think the law still states that rape involves penetration with a body part or an object) and allegations of rape occur when someone believes they have been raped and tells some one...apart from the exceptionally rare cases of rape)when someone makes a false allegation.

your posts seem to be a bit academic in tone ... ain't slagging you off but I think that is what caused the SWP to fuck up so badly in the first place.
It is in my opinion very valid to say what should have happened as we are not just discussing past allegations ... there are allegations still being looked at and have been since the Delta case and nothing seems to have changed.

The point of examining events is surely to learn what went well and what went wrong in order to not repeat mistakes and to get better at whatever it is you do...your response seems to suggest discussing this as if we were not interested parties...which obviously we all are

I only meant that 'its irrelevant' in that the SWP have decided what they will do, and what we say makes no odds. And that we've had that discussion at (very interesting and quite useful) length previously. I certainly dont mean developing such a view is irrelevant, iyswim.

My point about you 'misunderstanding' the basis of rape (a poor choice of words, should have been more like accusations of rape and investigations, or something) was your referring to the making of 'false allegations' as the only reason why a victims word shouldn't be automatically taken. you say the accused should be suspended 'until the matter is sorted' - but if the matter isnt taken to the police and cant be investigated by the party, it will never be sorted. I know you recognise this in your post, but you think its a better solution, whereas I'd say its just slightly differently shit.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

See now this is why Ortho Trots shouldn't do philosophy. Instrumentalism? Not at all. One of the more fruitful results of the Prof's slow trawl through academia is his salvaging of Lakatos' philosophy of science as a guide to good Marxist science. The scientific efficacy of a theory for Lakatos is in its ability to predict novel facts at the same time as explaining the ones it was originally designed to explain. The novel facts here being workers revolts against Stalinism for example. But that really is another thread although the Prof sums it up quite well here: http://www.marxists.de/trotism/callinicos/5-2_reorient.htm

This is the purest obscurantism.

Making an argument because it points to predetermined desirable consequences rather than because it actually explains the issue at hand is both intellectually dishonest and, worse, likely to be more and more deeply misleading as the observable facts start to diverge more drastically from the convenient but unfounded explanation. This has nothing to do with predicting "novel facts" and everything to do with predicting outcomes the theoretician was already disposed to predict.

The particular example you give is useless on its own terms, as just about all hostile left wing theories of Stalinism predicted workers revolts. But even addressing this is a red herring. The argument I was criticising as instrumentalist was not "state capitalism is correct because it predicted revolts" but "state capitalism is correct because it inoculates against an undesirable tendency to favour one Cold War bloc". Similarly, I was not criticising some predictive claim about the nature of sexism made on behalf of the SWPs analysis of women's oppression. I was criticising the argument that it must be treated as true because to do otherwise would allegedly lead to political conclusions we think are undesirable for other reasons, drawn from outside the theory.

 

[belboid]

Fair enough to dismiss my post as irrelevant but how on earth are you able to say that my post showed a "misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rapes occur" is a complete mystery to me. I have never addressed this question because ... well to be honest it seems irrelevant.

Rape occurs when one person performs a sexual act on some one else without permission...(I think the law still states that rape involves penetration with a body part or an object) and allegations of rape occur when someone believes they have been raped and tells some one...apart from the exceptionally rare cases of rape)when someone makes a false allegation.

your posts seem to be a bit academic in tone ... ain't slagging you off but I think that is what caused the SWP to fuck up so badly in the first place.
It is in my opinion very valid to say what should have happened as we are not just discussing past allegations ... there are allegations still being looked at and have been since the Delta case and nothing seems to have changed.

The point of examining events is surely to learn what went well and what went wrong in order to not repeat mistakes and to get better at whatever it is you do...your response seems to suggest discussing this as if we were not interested parties...which obviously we all are

I only meant that 'its irrelevant' in that the SWP have decided what they will do, and what we say makes no odds. And that we've had that discussion at (very interesting and quite useful) length previously. I certainly dont mean developing such a view is irrelevant, iyswim.

My point about you 'misunderstanding' the basis of rape (a poor choice of words, should have been more like accusations of rape) was your use of the phrase:

No it doesn't mean that at all you aggressive little prick.

I'm interested in the answer because for me I think it's a shift for people who have remained in the SWP to move from a position of thinking shit we really fucked up here to a position where they think that the party has become so degenerate that someone with her history of supporting women (myself included) would put the SWP before a woman comrade. I'm interested in that shift because I have no doubt that many other women who have been involved with the SWP have had similar experiences to myself and that for them, or some of them, to believe that she behaved as described must involve...a real crisis. The reason I expressed it as I did is because she's not just some DC figure, but someone who has played a particular role in the SWP re. women's liberation, both politically and personally. If I thought that someone like that could become so corrupt, I couldn't imagine wanting to stay in the organisation.

I'm not in the SWP so it hasn't been a crisis for me, I haven't had to leave an organisation that I've dedicated years to, but the past year has been confusing and quite painful for me, and I'm sure it has been much more so for those in the organisation, some of whom I care about. I'm not going to pretend that it's all completely black and white and clear what a bunch of degenerate rape apologists they all are just because the men in p&p tell me that's what I should be thinking. My experience as a young woman in the SWP was that it was the most unsexist environment I'd ever encountered. I'm not going to pretend that my experience was different at that time just because it doesn't fit with the current analysis. I'd have to be pretty lacking in integrity and judgement if my own personal experience as a woman in that organisation didn't cause me some confusion about what is going on now. And I should be able to talk about that without having to make a disclaimer each time about how disgusting it all is just to make sure that all the p&p folk with their certitudes don't think I'm a rape apologist.

I'm also interested in what's happening in the SWP because I'm interested in states of minds and I'm interested in group dynamics, because that is my work, and those things are political to me too.

It has been my experience in p&p that people don't find my posts interesting, they're often misunderstood, or ignored. But I'll continue to express myself in the way I choose, use the words that mean something to me, and post about the things that I find interesting, based on my own experience.

sorry, but given what you've written above, I dont really understand why you were asking the question in the first place, when you pretty much answer it yourself here. How someone leaves what you find to be an 'abusive organisation' is pretty similar to how someone leaves an abusive person - sometimes quickly and easily, sometimes slowly and messily. I apologise for thinking you were being disingenuous (tho I'd also add point out I have never accused anyone of being a rape apologist), but I'm just honestly rather shocked at the honest naivety of the question.

 

[belboid]

Don't be bringing facts into the discussion. No court, workplace or union tribunal would ever want to know the full facts about the state of mind and physical condition of the parties involved in such an incident. To suggest they would doesn't sufficiently indict the swp's dc of misogyny and is therefore wrong per se.

asking whether someone was so drunk they couldnt remember anything is different to asking about there general drinking habits tho, isnt it?

I admire your honesty but in fairness the SWP has been arguing against the feminist notion of male benefits since the 80's when we all had the argument the first time round. I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about. Kind of thing you have to do from time to time if you're not just about making friends. If people have lately been joining the party and sticking around for a while and not realising that or only realising it now then clearly the party didn't do a very good job of arguing its own politics with the people it was recruiting.

but you are confusing two things - whether 'men' benefit overall from women's oppression, and whether men receive any form of benefit from the specific ways women are oppressed.

In order to see men do receive some benefits, you dont have to check you privilege, just check your pay packet.

 

[Oisin123]

The argument I was criticising as instrumentalist was ... "state capitalism is correct because it inoculates against an undesirable tendency to favour one Cold War bloc". Similarly, I was not criticising some predictive claim about the nature of sexism made on behalf of the SWPs analysis of women's oppression. I was criticising the argument that it must be treated as true because to do otherwise would allegedly lead to political conclusions we think are undesirable for other reasons, drawn from outside the theory.

I never once heard either of those arguments. Are you sure you're not projecting? Did anyone ever say this to you or write it? There's a lot online by Cliff and Harman on State Cap, but I bet you have a hard time finding formulations so obviously shallow as these. You must have a very low opinion of those who have been SWP members over the years if you think they would accept such logic. But let's not get off topic. If anyone did say this, they were wrong to do.

 

[belboid]

I never once heard either of those arguments. Are you sure you're not projecting? Did anyone ever say this to you or write it? There's a lot online by Cliff and Harman on State Cap, but I bet you have a hard time finding formulations so obviously shallow as these. You must have a very low opinion of those who have been SWP members over the years if you think they would accept such logic. But let's not get off topic. If anyone did say this, they were wrong to do.

I've never heard it put anything like as crudely as Nigel has put it, but the 'instrumentalist' one was used. Specifically I recall it being said that state cap's great strength was that it allowed us to save the idea of socialism from below - it meant socialism (equated here with the workers state) couldn't, not even in a deformed form, be brought about by russian tanks.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I've never heard it put anything like as crudely as Nigel has put it, but the 'instrumentalist' one was used.

It's a fair point that I'm putting it in the crudest possible terms. It's difficult to avoid doing so in a one sentence description. You lose the nuances of even arguments that are themselves crude. Similarly, the argument that deviation from the SWP's orthodoxy on women's oppression generally, and on the question of whether working class men benefit in particular, leads to feminist divisiveness and even separatism is all over both articles from the 80s rows and from the current disputes. Albeit in less clunky form than my half sentence summary.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I never once heard either of those arguments. Are you sure you're not projecting? Did anyone ever say this to you or write it? There's a lot online by Cliff and Harman on State Cap, but I bet you have a hard time finding formulations so obviously shallow as these. You must have a very low opinion of those who have been SWP members over the years if you think they would accept such logic. But let's not get off topic. If anyone did say this, they were wrong to do.

I suspect that perhaps you filter them out, because otherwise I'm honestly bewildered by that claim. I should however point out that these are not the only arguments put forward.

Also, I don't necessarily have a low opinion of people because they accept or adopt fallacious arguments. Lord knows I've done it often enough myself.

 

[Das Uberdog]

It's a fair point that I'm putting it in the crudest possible terms. It's difficult to avoid doing so in a one sentence description. You lose the nuances of even arguments that are themselves crude. Similarly, the argument that deviation from the SWP's orthodoxy on women's oppression generally, and on the question of whether working class men benefit in particular, leads to feminist divisiveness and even separatism is all over both articles from the 80s rows and from the current disputes. Albeit in less clunky form than my half sentence summary.

i think that's too harsh on yourself - you put it in its logically chrysallised form. i certainly recognise your formulation from my time in the party

 

[Red Cat]

sorry, but given what you've written above, I dont really understand why you were asking the question in the first place, when you pretty much answer it yourself here. How someone leaves what you find to be an 'abusive organisation' is pretty similar to how someone leaves an abusive person - sometimes quickly and easily, sometimes slowly and messily. I apologise for thinking you were being disingenuous (tho I'd also add point out I have never accused anyone of being a rape apologist), but I'm just honestly rather shocked at the honest naivety of the question.

Well, clearly not everyone experiences it as an abusive organisation because they're still in it and plenty of them are women. So I'm assuming that some of that is because the loyalists have all known eachother for decades and can't contemplate that they may have done wrong. If we don't understand that and how powerful those identifications are then we're missing a large part of the process, although it was an obvious part of the analysis of the way in which the Martin Smith case was mishandled.

I think some of my apparent naivety is that I'm not in touch enough to know who the loyalists and who the opposition are. I haven't spoken to anyone in the SWP for months and I'm not on facebook. I don't live in the same city as I did when I was a member - I'm really not in touch with it at all.

I was imagining that the latest revelations had produced a further shift in the party towards the opposition and that if that was the case that may well involve people who have a history with Rhetta, who have previously believed that it was just one fuck up rather than of repeated acts of manipulation and deliberate cover up* as suggested in the latest ISN piece, and if that was the case then that is significant, to me. However, looking at the opposition list there are no names I recognise, so I'm guessing that the old/young split still exists and that those that have worked alongside each other for decades are defending the party line and those that don't have that history with each other aren't so identified with such a good view of the party. For someone who knows Rhetta to believe that she would act in that way is of far greater significance than someone fairly new to the party who knows nothing about her. And it was that process that I was trying to get at.

As for what has actually happened, it all seems very clear on here and in blogs, but I consider myself at such a distance from it all, I don't think my opinion, or confusion, has any weight at all. I still think it must feel like you're going mad if you're in the SWP and there seems an awful lot of paranoia about, but, yes, perhaps I am naive, and actually people feel pretty clear about their positions. I am so far from manipulative myself, I have real difficulty seeing it. The world of politics is clearly not for me.

As for my own view of Rhetta, she has been a good friend to me, and that's my own personal business that I'm not going to share here.

Anyway, enough of the overlong posts!

ETA: * Perhaps I'm overstating this. I understand perhaps some people don't see this in such terms, that it's more the continuation of unconscious bias/identification or the wrong politics on women, but I think it's also the case that others do, particularly in relation to Callinicos, if not in the SWP, then certainly outside the SWP, and that's what I responded to.

 

[cesare]

I don't know Rhetta (or any of the other key individuals) so I'm speculating/observing. I think it's worth noting that experience in dealing with rape/sexual/DV abuse survivors and a background in feminism doesn't necessarily confer specific skills that are required for any investigation into complaints (if that's the role that Rhetta was assigned to). It 's quite a different kettle of fish where background and experience give insight but not necessarily the specific skills required. This - on the face of it - possibly points to a training need.

 

[Red Cat]

I don't know Rhetta (or any of the other key individuals) so I'm speculating/observing. I think it's worth noting that experience in dealing with rape/sexual/DV abuse survivors and a background in feminism doesn't necessarily confer specific skills that are required for any investigation into complaints (if that's the role that Rhetta was assigned to). It 's quite a different kettle of fish where background and experience give insight but not necessarily the specific skills required. This - on the face of it - possibly points to a training need.

Yes, I agree with that, I think that's a really clear way of putting it.

 

[Red Cat]

All this is pretty theoretical, but forms some of the ideology of the sexual cases- that the SWP are allegedly the party of the working class, which traditionally to an extent= men. 'Remember that we are the party of the WC' i.e. remember we can't admit that a man in our party might benefit from his position of power over women, as a man. Nor does anyone of course have power over anyone else in the SWP, that they can abuse.

So the reason you're still in the SWP is that you believe you can win the argument to a more feminist democratic politics which will make abuse of power and abuse of women by men in the SWP less likely?

Some people outside the SWP are of the opinion that the very nature of a vanguard gives the party's members a belief in their superior powers, a belief that ordinary rules don't apply, that it is in itself corrupting.

 

[comrade spurski]

I only meant that 'its irrelevant' in that the SWP have decided what they will do, and what we say makes no odds. And that we've had that discussion at (very interesting and quite useful) length previously. I certainly dont mean developing such a view is irrelevant, iyswim.

My point about you 'misunderstanding' the basis of rape (a poor choice of words, should have been more like accusations of rape and investigations, or something) was your referring to the making of 'false allegations' as the only reason why a victims word shouldn't be automatically taken. you say the accused should be suspended 'until the matter is sorted' - but if the matter isnt taken to the police and cant be investigated by the party, it will never be sorted. I know you recognise this in your post, but you think its a better solution, whereas I'd say its just slightly differently shit.

Fair enough...can't really say I have a great or even good answer re what to do if it is not sorted!

 

[belboid]

second ISN bulletin is out. The new SW one must be due too

 

[TremulousTetra]

asking whether someone was so drunk they couldnt remember anything is different to asking about there general drinking habits tho, isnt it?


but you are confusing two things - whether 'men' benefit overall from women's oppression, and whether men receive any form of benefit from the specific ways women are oppressed.

In order to see men do receive some benefits, you dont have to check you privilege, just check your pay packet.

I don't think he's confusing things , he's making the point overall men do not benefit from women's oppression , capitalism and the capitalist class do.

did Lady Diana suffer from women's oppression?

I think it's fair to say Marxism is a systemic analysis, rather than looking at the losses and gains of individuals.

 

[belboid]

I don't think he's confusing things , he's making the point overall men do not benefit from women's oppression , capitalism and the capitalist class do.

did Lady Diana suffer from women's oppression?

I think it's fair to say Marxism is a systemic analysis, rather than looking at the losses and gains of individuals.

Well done on completely missing the point.

 

[Pickman's model]

did Lady Diana suffer from women's oppression?

yes

next

 

[oskarsdrum]

"Our education consisted of relying on the same handful of texts, quotes by Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Cliff, as if they were maxims unto themselves. Cadreisation involved learning how to speak the line, parrot the leadership’s stick-bending. It was not even fully encouraged to develop a rounded knowledge of the Marxist method. Some “leading members” seemed to only regurgitate a handful of anecdotes, quotes and Marxist ideas over and over again, in every meeting. This kind of cadreisation at its worst is simply a kind of academic mimicry; learn how to speak like the leadership, cultivate a suitably revolutionary language, and you can rise through the party ranks."

If only this was the SWP IB! But of course it's the ISN bulletin....apposite for the last couple of pages I think.

Edit..."While many swappies may pontificate about how the party can follow the class, most in practise appeared to believe that the solution was to recruit, cadreise, and repeat in as many workplaces and campuses as possible. No wonder the party had such a high member turnover and burnout rate." --well of course, lots of people have been saying this stuff for ages. But it's nice to hear it from insiders.

 

[benedict]

"Our education consisted of relying on the same handful of texts, quotes by Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Cliff, as if they were maxims unto themselves. Cadreisation involved learning how to speak the line, parrot the leadership’s stick-bending. It was not even fully encouraged to develop a rounded knowledge of the Marxist method. Some “leading members” seemed to only regurgitate a handful of anecdotes, quotes and Marxist ideas over and over again, in every meeting. This kind of cadreisation at its worst is simply a kind of academic mimicry; learn how to speak like the leadership, cultivate a suitably revolutionary language, and you can rise through the party ranks."

If only this was the SWP IB! But of course it's the ISN bulletin....apposite for the last couple of pages I think.

Edit..."While many swappies may pontificate about how the party can follow the class, most in practise appeared to believe that the solution was to recruit, cadreise, and repeat in as many workplaces and campuses as possible. No wonder the party had such a high member turnover and burnout rate." --well of course, lots of people have been saying this stuff for ages. But it's nice to hear it from insiders.

Yeah that's the question. When did the ISNers see the light? Why didn't they argue this kind of line internally in the SWP? It makes it a bit hard to stomach the righteousnous of those like Seymour (on Lenin's Too) who spent so many years delivering slapdowns in high fallutin' prose with all the elegance of a boxed contortionist to anyone who critiqued the party line.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well done on completely missing the point.

Fair comment. I jumped in, mid conversation, as to what I guessed was being suggested.
I do think the comments are fair though. I do think the SWP's analysis on feminism WAS reasonable and logical . ( That's the SWP when I was a member).
For me the problem with people's arguments that we were taught the party line by rote , is that the party line was a logical totality . All the various strands, feminism , imperialism, sectarianism , political economy Etc etc, all hung together as a whole . complemented and supported each other.
particularly in the 1980s , we would spend hours and hours discussing and arguing the party line . there was massive debate about support for victory for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Massive debate over every single issue including Marx, Trotsky , and Lenin. People who merely recited the words of such dead men, were regularly castigated, and quite right so.
people like Chris Harman, Paul Foot, Colin Barker , John Molineux and the vast majority of people who had been members for 30 or 40 years were not drones merely repeating a party line. In fact drones from top to bottom, were continually challenged.
I don't find the suggestion that SWP members were drones as insulting to the SWP, I see it is more damaging to those who argued against them. Substituting lazy nonsense, for reasoned debate.
Whether the SWP were politically correct, logical correct , should have been discussed. But in my opinion the "Trotbot" argument undermined the legitimate arguments of political opponents to the SWP.
All of which is moot. Why this thread is still going, is beyond me.
PS. Lovely day today, so I'm off for a few pints. Enjoy comrades.

ETA. I must in all honesty admit though, such a interminable debate and discussion was not a feature of the 90s.

 

[butchersapron]

I was at a meeting about the black panthers last night and was talking to the last student from the pre-current year intake to leave the SWP in bristol. I had never thought he'd leave such was his dogmatism and party loyalty (based on his limited experience of life up to that point, not any inherent failing) . Now he is rabidly anti-swp, i was quite shocked at his anger at the party leadership - i guess that happens when not only do you have political differences but think you've been hoodwinked, lied to and manipulated as well. And remember, he was a hardcore loyalist at this point last year.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

This just in:
http://isj.org.uk/?id=931

“The politics of the SWP crisis”-a response
Issue: 140
Posted: 18 October 13
by Jim Wolfreys, Colin Barker, Louis Bayman, Simon Behrman, Anindya Bhattacharyya, Estelle Cooch, Neil Davidson, Hannah Dee, Jacqui Freeman, Amy Gilligan, Mike Gonzalez, Mike Haynes, Jonny Jones, Andy Stone, Dan Swain, Megan Trudell, Alexis Wearmouth and Jennifer Wilkinson

As members of the editorial board of International Socialism we wish to disassociate ourselves from the recently published article, “The Politics of the SWP Crisis”, written by the journal’s editor and the national secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).1 It purports to offer a summary of the recent disputes that have divided the organisation along with an overview of the party’s trajectory over the past decade. The article’s account of both processes is partial and misleading. More than this, however, we believe that the political stance adopted by the authors will, if left unchecked, destroy the SWP as we know it and turn it into an irrelevant sect.

 

[laptop]

Diary: who needs the police when we have the Socialist Workers party?


















Hello Hugh!