SWP expulsions and squabbles

[redcogs]

Realised i didnae answer the question adequately. In a rush, but i might get back later.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I like the idea of the Central Committee of the SWP replacing the full-timers with a load of robots that sell papers and recite Cliff. Saves money. Bit of neo-luddism.

 

[barney_pig]

I remember being at a pre conference caucus way back- there was some minor internal dispute which I cannot remember, maybe about Nigel Harris's expulsion.
There was a succession of speakers expressing the Leninist necessity of trusting in the leaderships distrust of the membership. I didn't get it then, I don't now.
I got up, all youthful innocence, and declared that the other side of democratic centralism must be constant vigilance over the leadership by the members.
This did not go done well. Afterwards Julie waterson was supportive.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I didn't know until today that SWP leadership members aren't assigned to branches. Which seems of a piece with their absence from paper sales and their usual refusal to sell the paper at meetings they speak at. Plebs work.

 

[imposs1904]

I'd rather not say when, suffice to say it was time ago. It was about the role and nature of SW. The important point is that the membership were unaware of the debate raging among the leadership = organised distrust of the members.

fair enough

 

[butchersapron]

fair enough

It'll only be for one night. Just the ten of us.

 

[emanymton]

I didn't know until today that SWP leadership members aren't assigned to branches. Which seems of a piece with their absence from paper sales and their usual refusal to sell the paper at meetings they speak at. Plebs work.

I am sure they used to be when I was in.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I am sure they used to be when I was in.

Wonder when that changed? Recent ex members seem very confident that all CC members and some other fters are not assigned to branches but are in the category "national members", alongside semi-expelled people like the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3

 

[andysays]

I like the idea of the Central Committee of the SWP replacing the full-timers with a load of robots that sell papers and recite Cliff. Saves money. Bit of neo-luddism.

Surely they would need two different models - the basic "rank-and-file" member whose responsibilities are limited to selling papers, taking part in UAF demos and blindly accepting everything the leadership comes out with, and the more advanced "leadership" model with built-in proletarian conciousness, responsible for interpreting the holy book of Cliff, deciding on the role and nature of the party and covering up for their mates if their "interactions" with r&f members are misinterpreted by those without the correct level of revolutionary conciousness

 

[imposs1904]

It'll only be for one night. Just the ten of us.

where are you going with this? ps - Is the NYC Anarchist Bookfair really that early next year?

 

[emanymton]

Wonder when that changed? Recent ex members seem very confident that all CC members and some other fters are not assigned to branches but are in the category "national members", alongside semi-expelled people like the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3

District organisers where always national members, which makes sense. Butoffice staff where in branches and I remember CC members talking about 'their' branch. Maybe it is down to the individual CC member, and what they want to do?

 

[SpackleFrog]

So the opposition are gonna lose (again) that much is clear. But what then? Expulsions? I can't see a resolution to this at the minute. Am I giving them too much credit if I say I don't see them being silly enough to expel the likes of Pat Stack?

 

[emanymton]

So the opposition are gonna lose (again) that much is clear. But what then? Expulsions? I can't see a resolution to this at the minute. Am I giving them too much credit if I say I don't see them being silly enough to expel the likes of Pat Stack?

They don't have to expel them, just make life hard for them.

 

[redcogs]

Were they robots when they joined or did they become so?

Not long before i joined there had been factional issues. i believe Jim Higgins had been displaced, and Protz pushed aside etc. i knew none of this at the time (presumably it was kept away from new members), but some excellent people in the branch dropped out activity in response. i don't remember any attempt being made to reintegrate them. Shamefully they were sort of erased from the branch's collective memory. i kept in irregular contact with one of them (who had been instrumental in recruitment), and he was quite bitter about the Party's failure to properly recognise his previous commitment or to make any attempts to keep him onside. He definitely felt devalued. This method of dealing with dissidents is now widely recognised as a normal swp practice, but i didn't see that at the time. The branch sec of that period didn't seem at all like Dr Spock, quite the contrary. However, he was certainly a part of the conspiracy of silence which surrounded the loss of leading local members.

So, on reflection, the robot gene may well have been 'in' the branch sec, but well concealed for reasons of politics. But obviously yours is an impossible question to answer with any real non subjective accuracy Redcat.

 

[Karmickameleon]

the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3

Surely not Rhetta!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

They don't have to expel them, just make life hard for them.

They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.

 

[barney_pig]

They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.

Yes because opposing rapists and rape denying is "being cocks".
You are showing your true colours sure enough

 

[comrade spurski]

They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.

 

[benedict]

They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.

Ever with the incisive political analysis, eh bolshie

 

[bolshiebhoy]

That's right I never take the argument seriously.

 

[Karmickameleon]

Not long before i joined there had been factional issues. i believe Jim Higgins had been displaced, and Protz pushed aside etc. i knew none of this at the time (presumably it was kept away from new members), but some excellent people in the branch dropped out activity in response. i don't remember any attempt being made to reintegrate them. Shamefully they were sort of erased from the branch's collective memory. i kept in irregular contact with one of them (who had been instrumental in recruitment), and he was quite bitter about the Party's failure to properly recognise his previous commitment or to make any attempts to keep him onside. He definitely felt devalued. This method of dealing with dissidents is now widely recognised as a normal swp practice, but i didn't see that at the time. The branch sec of that period didn't seem at all like Dr Spock, quite the contrary. However, he was certainly a part of the conspiracy of silence which surrounded the loss of leading local members.

So, on reflection, the robot gene may well have been 'in' the branch sec, but well concealed for reasons of politics. But obviously yours is an impossible question to answer with any real non subjective accuracy Redcat.

You raise an interesting question because the way the International Socialist Opposition (Higgins, Palmer, Protz etc...) was dealt with is not entirely dissimilar to what has been happening to the current opposition. (Birchall and Barker must in the past few months have reflected on this ironic turn of events!).
The ISO was able to present its position in the then monthly internal bulletins, but - crucially - found that its representation at conference was minimal as voting was introduced in district aggregates, where it rarely commanded a majority, rather than branches, where it sometimes did, and on a winner take all basis. Sounds familiar...
What's more all kinds of dirty tricks were used to isolate the ISO members by national secretary, Jim Nichol, and his team of full-times. I understand that Jim has since apologised for those undemocratic practises.
I write these words as someone who supported the Cliff position against the ISO. However, in retrospect I would say that this was where the rot set in.

 

[discokermit]

You raise an interesting question because the way the International Socialist Opposition (Higgins, Palmer, Protz etc...) was dealt with is not entirely dissimilar to what has been happening to the current opposition. (Birchall and Barker must in the past few months have reflected on this ironic turn of events!).
The ISO was able to present its position in the then monthly internal bulletins, but - crucially - found that its representation at conference was minimal as voting was introduced in district aggregates, where it rarely commanded a majority, rather than branches, where it sometimes did, and on a winner take all basis. Sounds familiar...
What's more all kinds of dirty tricks were used to isolate the ISO members by national secretary, Jim Nichol, and his team of full-times. I understand that Jim has since apologised for those undemocratic practises.
I write these words as someone who supported the Cliff position against the ISO. However, in retrospect I would say that this was where the rot set in.

if the structure is sound, rot can't set in.

 

[Karmickameleon]

But it's not just a top down process, it goes two ways. If the leadership have a position of distrust, then the membership have a position of trust, otherwise it wouldn't work, and this crisis is about the fact that it no longer does. I'm interested in how the membership end up being persuaded of a pov that doesn't match their own experience. That involves thinking that the leadership has 'powers' unavailable to the membership, instead of having a sense of our own authority (that we look to ourselves to think things through, work things out, judge the truth of something ) we trust the perspective of the leader over our own.

I don't want to over-psychologise this, but it seems to me that unless we examine these kinds of processes, include them as part of a political analysis, then we end up thinking either the problem is purely political (leninism, vanguardism, democratic centralism) or personal (they are cunts, nutters, mindless).

There is a psychological element, but I don't think that it's necessarily the most relevant. As I have mentioned in a previous post, I was for a relatively short period of time a full-time organiser. I certainly saw myself as defending the leadership's position and - in a sense - being their representative in the area. As an organiser, you also tend to value those members who are "loyal" rather than those who might be described as loose cannons. In great part, I would now put this down to being a young very keen impressionable revolutionary (and being in awe of those leaders that I was rubbing shoulders with), but there may well be a deeper explanation.

 

[Karmickameleon]

if the structure is sound, rot can't set in.

That might be true of buildings, but the same analogy doesn't necessarily hold for political parties in which the structure is human.

 

[discokermit]

That might be true of buildings, but the same analogy doesn't necessarily hold for political parties in which the structure is human.

no. this isn't a human problem. it's structural. as was the seventies. cliff grant healey the club the fourth international all fucking shit.

 

[Karmickameleon]

Too little too late... but an interesting development: faction meetings on youtube:

 

[belboid]

They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.

They will walk, by and large, I reckon. Because they no longer recognise the party as being the one they joined and spent decades fighting for. Quite rightly.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

no. this isn't a human problem. it's structural. as was the seventies. cliff grant healey the club the fourth international all fucking shit.

Nah it's down to a mixture of issues of which structure is one, human relationships and group psychology are others and of course they all feed into and reinforce each other.

 

[redcogs]

Its pretty obvious that Stack Birchall et al need to remain if the swp is to retain any semblance of a socialist conscience or long term potential. Neil Davidsons case for a refoundation of the swp seems unanswerable to me. Why on earth would any socialist want to remain within an organisation which lies and covers and also denies the membership and serious influence on political strategy and tactics in the way that the currently structured swp does?

If the coming kangaroo court conference alienates the very heart of the Party to such an extent that good comrades are obliged to walk away it would indeed be tragic - but they would be walking away from an incredibly narrow bullying and irrelevant sect.

i suppose that many here believe it would not matter if the swp shrivelled into oblivion.. But i'm not so sure.

 

[J Ed]

i suppose that many here believe it would not matter if the swp shrivelled into oblivion.. But i'm not so sure.

I don't think that it wouldn't matter, I think that it would be an actively good thing. Besides being an organisation in which multiple rape victims which we know of have been abused and their abuse has been covered up, they have undoubtedly put many more people off of socialist politics than they have ever organised or recruited.