SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Karmickameleon]

is that actually an IDOOM doc? Most of those names aren't what I'd call brainless people.

No, not brainless in the sense that these are the people who are actively setting the agenda for the forthcoming purge. But yes they are brainless in that they are fast taking the SWP down the road to becoming a sect.

 

[belboid]

is that actually an IDOOM doc? Most of those names aren't what I'd call brainless people.

really? Paul M (if its McGarr), not a fool. Sheila M - not a fool, but backed into a corner of her own making and talking tosh (her last two pieces have been awful), Talat - not an idiot, but has never made any significant contribution to the party. Gareth J, a bit of a surprise, but there you go. Otherwise? Its the hacks and the shouters. Just think, in a few months time you could be in the most perfect party ever. You and those fifty.

 

[leyton96]

really? Paul M (if its McGarr), not a fool. Sheila M - not a fool, but backed into a corner of her own making and talking tosh (her last two pieces have been awful), Talat - not an idiot, but has never made any significant contribution to the party. Gareth J, a bit of a surprise, but there you go. Otherwise? Its the hacks and the shouters. Just think, in a few months time you could be in the most perfect party ever. You and those fifty.

There also seems to be a lot less names on this document compared to the 'Expel the heretics' contribution to the first IB (AKA 'Statement for our Revolutionary Party'). Notable signers from the 1st IB missing are legendary Hackney-based shouter Sasha, highly respected women's counselor Rhetta from Manchester, future Sheffield MP Maxine and well known industrial mastermind Anna in Euston.

None of these strike me as the type to go quiet or drop away from a hard hitting statement calling for a heave-ho of oppositionists.
Are there divisions among the 'Leatherites' as well I wonder?

 

[belboid]

There also seems to be a lot less names on this document compared to the 'Expel the heretics' contribution to the first IB (AKA 'Statement for our Revolutionary Party'). Notable signers from the 1st IB missing are legendary Hackney-based shouter Sasha, highly respected women's counselor Rhetta from Manchester, future Sheffield MP Maxine and well known industrial mastermind Anna in Euston.

None of these strike me as the type to go quiet or drop away from a hard hitting statement calling for a heave-ho of oppositionists.
Are there divisions among the 'Leatherites' as well I wonder?

yeah, they're actually the less nutty of the nutters. i wonder if this is just an early draft with more names to come, or if the hardcore Leatherettes have crayoned up an even madder version of events. I suspect this lot have (finally) realised that the party will be weakened by the loss the likes of Birchall, Stack and Wilson.

 

[Karmickameleon]

yeah, they're actually the less nutty of the nutters.

I am told that this is a joint "softie"/IDOOM manifesto which effectively seals the Professor's victory (if that wasn't already on the cards). Any other interpretations?

 

[Oisin123]

I am told that this is a joint "softie"/IDOOM manifesto which effectively seals the Professor's victory (if that wasn't already on the cards). Any other interpretations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

 

[Karmickameleon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

Absolutely! But to quote Ian Birchall quoting Joe Strummer: the future is unwritten..... BTW Ian seems to be preparing for life after the SWP. Some good stuff here:
http://grimanddim.org/about/

 

[belboid]

I am told that this is a joint "softie"/IDOOM manifesto which effectively seals the Professor's victory (if that wasn't already on the cards). Any other interpretations?

Yeah, this is what I've just been discussing - keep the 'real nutters' (the Maxine's, the Rhetta's etc) are being kept away for 'tactical' reasons.

Ian's site does make a good read.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's a split document.

The assumption underlying it is that there's another split in the post. So this is aimed at trying to keep some of the most orthoswap oppositionists and waverers. The carrot is a tendentious portrayal of the CCs stance on the second DC case and DC reform. This is intended to provide cover for people to slide back into line. The stick is the stuff about political differences, the rightward moving splits outside, etc

Swallow your medicine or it's out into the Seymouro-Reesite swamp where people have all kinds of unacceptable ideas.

 

[Karmickameleon]

Swallow your medicine or it's out into the Seymouro-Reesite swamp where people have all kinds of unacceptable ideas.

From the latest Party Notes:

The CC argued that we need to make the aggregates as political and comradely as possible. The CC believes there must be polemical debate on the issues before us, and voting based on the politics of the candidates.
But the CC believes there must also be a space for people to be elected who do not define themselves as members of the faction or supporters of the CC position. (my emphasis)

If it weren't so typically cynical, I'd have a really good laugh...

 

[bolshiebhoy]

It's a split document.

The assumption underlying it is that there's another split in the post. So this is aimed at trying to keep some of the most orthoswap oppositionists and waverers. The carrot is a tendentious portrayal of the CCs stance on the second DC case and DC reform. This is intended to provide cover for people to slide back into line. The stick is the stuff about political differences, the rightward moving splits outside, etc

Swallow your medicine or it's out into the Seymouro-Reesite swamp where people have all kinds of unacceptable ideas.

Actually it's better than that no? There is a passage about disagreements not being a reason to split in and of themselves. It draws the line at permanent factions around those disagreements which is a different and quite sensible position.

The party has always had people who disagree with all sorts of core theoretical points. That's cool and only a complete sectarian arse would want those people kicked out. It's the folk who are operating a party within the party around those differences and undermining its effectiveness in the real world who need to get a grip.

 

[Oisin123]

It's the folk who are operating a party within the party around those differences and undermining its effectiveness in the real world who need to get a grip.

Ahh, BB, can't you see this sentence applies most of all to those hard-line 'loyalists'? The UK SWP will find its effectiveness in the 'real world' massively weakened when the opposition leave, because those that remain will be considered, rightly, as the ones most associated with the cover-up of rape and sexual harassment allegations.

 

[belboid]

It's the folk who are operating a party within the party around those differences and undermining its effectiveness in the real world who need to get a grip.

that'd be the people who actually wrote the article you're praising! Except they weren't honest enough to form an formal faction.

 

[andysays]

.

 

[butchersapron]

that'd be the people who actually wrote the article you're praising! Except they weren't honest enough to form an formal faction.

They don't need to be. That's how democratic centralism works.

 

[Karmickameleon]

From latest Weekly Worker:

The NC heard a debate around the following motion, moved by former women’s organiser and author on women’s rights, Sheila McGregor:

“When a complaint about rape, sexual misconduct or domestic violence is made, the DC should investigate the matter in order to decide only on the fitness of the comrade complained against to be a member of the SWP or play a leading role in the organisation, and not to make any pronouncement on the facts of the complaint.

The DC will, of course, offer support to any comrade making such a complaint in finding suitable counselling and will politically fully support the right of any comrade who wishes to take such a complaint to the police.”

After a debate comrade McGregor was prevailed upon to withdraw her motion, because it would ‘not look good’ if the NC voted against it.

Pretty abject if true... Wasn't Sheila M supposed to be mediating between IdooM and the opposition?

 

[barney_pig]

Professor Frankenstein creates a monster, but what happens when the monster proves bigger than the professor and refuses to lie back down on the slab when the noisy villagers have buggered off

 

[Nigel Irritable]

According to Dave Rentons blog, the forthcoming IB3 contains an article calling for the reinstatement of Delta.

 

[butchersapron]

According to Dave Rentons blog, the forthcoming IB3 contains an article calling for the reinstatement of Delta.

Some good lines in the latest entry:

"we appear to have taken over the old political and organisational habits of late British Stalinism...At Marxism, Alex Callinicos formulated a series of ad hoc political justifications for administrative measures – accusing... Ian Birchall of not having read Ian’s own books".

And yes, he says in the comments the article for smith's return appears in IB3.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

A claim on twitter that Renton has been expelled. Not sure of the reliability.

 

[Karmickameleon]

A claim on twitter that Renton has been expelled. Not sure of the reliability.

He says he hasn't heard about it (which doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't been expelled...)

 

[Karmickameleon]

Michael Rosen on Facebook:
How left group or party politics 'works' in microcosm: when I posted political stuff here, SWP members often 'liked'. Then I criticised the way in which the SWP handled a sexual harrassment and rape accusation to the effect that it was crazy and wrong for them to think they were an organisation who could deliver a judgement on the case. The leadership explained to the members that they shouldn't take any notice of Rosen because he's not a Leninist and he says thst the Party should 'support' people who go to the police - (I hadn:t said that). So now loyal members show their loyalty by making sure they don't 'like' my posts. This is not a plea that they should. It is to point out that it's not my politics that's changed. It's theirs. They got it wrong. They thought they were better or cleverer or more astute than they are and instead of admitting it they have been attacking anyone who has pointed this out to them. Some have admitted to me in private that it's a matter of defending the indefensible. Yes, and that's why they've blown it. As an organisation its whole future depends on it being trusted by people other than its own members. And now it isn't. That's how they've blown it. And yet they are still behaving as people being critical of their mistakes are as much the enemy of the eft and progress as Tories or worse.

 

[William of Walworth]

Hugely glad I never considered joining this party. What a complete bunch of insane bonkersness .....

 

[Bakunin]

The new SWP PR honcho, yesterday:

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.

 

[discokermit]

Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.

fifty papers sold and three people joined the party!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Quite probably disco. I didn't see much of the rally after we'd marched, I wandered off to shout at the orcs.

 

[Delroy Booth]

haha bolshie you're fucking delusional

 

[Belushi]

What happens to people with Stockholm syndrome once even their captors stop believing in the party line?

 

[Karmickameleon]

But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.

I think the point Michael Rosen is making is the following: the leadership has criticised him, so supporters of the current CC show their "loyalty" by unliking his posts. This is not so much a policy as a reflex action. Probably, many of these members would accept (in private) that the leadership lied and covered up for Delta. However, they put what they perceive to be the interests of the party first and "defend the indefensible". As Michael says: "That's how they've blown it".