butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Spot on. Great title for a piece as well.
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Scribbling S
Active Member
Here's my confessions of a Comrade, hope it is not too longwinded - made in part in defence of the possibilities of the SWP, albeit shocked at the current crisis.
I joined the pretty big and lively SWSO group, and then the SWP in 81 at Sussex University out of a student occupation. The SWSO group and indeed the SWP looked like the largest, loudest left party around , with a young-ish membership. There certainly was a strong social element. Much of it was a ‘propaganda ‘ operation, but a lot of solidarity too (one of my first party duties involved raising a big chunk of cash for the water workers strike in 81 : They won incidentally, although I don’t think our donation was key) I stayed an active member up to the late 1990’s , although drifted off to raise a family.
People commenting on David Renton’s note saying “what held him to the party” seem to skip over the bit which he says held him most – pride in succesful work with comrades. This is a lot of what kept me in as well ,and many other people too – it is certainly what kept me interested.
There was of course the propaganda side – selling the paper (I was branch paper organiser for quite a few years), public meetings, Marxism. These were good things in themself, and enjoyable too. They did help teach some of the basics of campaigning as well.
But there were also a whole series of battles that I remember where being and SWP activist meant helping the winning side win – all of these were campaigns, strikes, protests alongside other political people – Militant, Anarchist , Labour Party Left and non-aligned – although the Labour people always had to do stuff in opposition to their national party. Which is of course the point – the SWP thought it should be fighting alongside other people and organisations (to do otherwise would be sectarian), but tried to lead them in what seemed like the most militant direction.
I had a clerical job in the civil service and then went on to work in a University library. I was a CPSA office rep and then a Unison branch secretary – I went for those posts because the SWP rule was always try and get elected as union rep (but don’t take a post with over 50% facility time) . The SWP “union fraction” was a great school for how to be a union militant. Both Martin Smith and John McLoughlin were in the CPSA fraction , and both, whatever their subsequent role , were very effective union militants and helped many others become the same. The kind of trade unionism I learned in my SWP branches or “union fraction” was all about acually winning support from the members who elected you – “building a base” – “rank & file” - not slipping something through at a committee and hoping to get away with it .
The picture of a lonely cult talking to itself while the Thatcher juggernaut rolled on defeating all seems quite wrong to me – it really was a bit of a right wing (later New Labour ) argument of the time – Thatcher wins everything, militancy doesn’t work. And it wasn’t true
Because I remember winning many small and some big battles – wether it was going on strike to get some NF activist shifted out of a job centre in Hither Green, or just pay campaigns, which weren’t perfect, but I think won a few quid. The SWP CPSA folk (along of course with many other union people) made a real difference there.
Bigger campaigns too – most obviously the Poll Tax – it is hard to overstate how pathetic the official Labour & TUC response to this was. But a completely unofficial movement, led by a mix of Militant, Anarchist & SWP types beat it (not perfectly), but also broke Thatcher. Labour couldn’t put a dent in either , whereas a homemade, ramshackle, far left operation did.
The last years of Thatcher were a time of quite a few succesful union fights – there were very effective national NHS and nurses strikes on pay (Candy Udwin had a significant role in them) which (1) Won a big pay rise and (2) cause Thatcher’s annointed successor John Moore to disintegrate.
The 89-90 Ambulance dispute was a kind of small-re-run of the Miners Strike, except our side won. At the core was the extraordinary decision of the crews to , instead of going on strike, occupying their stations and running a parralel, unofficial ambulance service funded by whatever cash they could raise in the unions and streets. Alongside, of course, many others, SWP members were very involved in this solidarity (I remember when I got my college staff out on a completely unofficial strike in support of the ambulance strike, how many other SWP union reps I saw at the strike rally )
Theoretically, our role was to break the barrier between “politics” and “economics”. The ultimate aim was to create the conditions for workers councils (soviets) but in the here and now this meant, er, raising good political causes in the workplace – the important thing was not just relying on getting a donation from a union conference, but doing it at grassroots level – I think I started by raising a donation and message for imprisoned South African trade unionist Moses Mayekiso in th 80’s in my Civil Service office, and by the 90’s was winning support and cash from my Unison branch for the campaign to free the Cardiff 3 and the Tottenham 3. History hasn’t been to generous to the Soviets plan, but has definitely looked kindly on these causes.
I drifted away from party membership in the late 90’s, although remain in contact with a fair few party members, and helped out on this and that (Socialist Alliance election campaign) . I thought the SWP’s role in Stop the War was impressive, if (it seems more so in retrospect) flawed. A series of increasingly eccentric decisions stopped me rejoining as the kids got older, from “dissolving the branches” to Respect. But I was still happy to help out now and then
I think the basic problem is quite simple. The internal democracy was always very weak. This mattered less when the party was bigger, broader and generally following a straightforward line (and, sadly, I think a lot of us just shrugged our shoulders and ignored this problem - I only went to Party Conference once, and didn't like the somewhat hack and bullying atmosphere. Instead of doing something about it, I just avoided going again and went to Marxism instead ) . But it caused real problems as the party got older and narrower and some of the leadership upped and died – there was no mechanism to replace them. And there was no mechanism to steer the party back when the remaining leadership started making all those barmy “get-rich-quick” plans. There were some obvious signs things were going wrong even from the semi-outside – -the inexplicable rift with the US ISO. Respect, Mark Steel, Counterfire Split, but the current scandal is still quite shocking – like a small historical reenactment society doing Stalinism. I think it doesn’t show that trying to build a socialist party is wrong. It just shows you need to put a premium on internal democracy.
I joined the pretty big and lively SWSO group, and then the SWP in 81 at Sussex University out of a student occupation. The SWSO group and indeed the SWP looked like the largest, loudest left party around , with a young-ish membership. There certainly was a strong social element. Much of it was a ‘propaganda ‘ operation, but a lot of solidarity too (one of my first party duties involved raising a big chunk of cash for the water workers strike in 81 : They won incidentally, although I don’t think our donation was key) I stayed an active member up to the late 1990’s , although drifted off to raise a family.
People commenting on David Renton’s note saying “what held him to the party” seem to skip over the bit which he says held him most – pride in succesful work with comrades. This is a lot of what kept me in as well ,and many other people too – it is certainly what kept me interested.
There was of course the propaganda side – selling the paper (I was branch paper organiser for quite a few years), public meetings, Marxism. These were good things in themself, and enjoyable too. They did help teach some of the basics of campaigning as well.
But there were also a whole series of battles that I remember where being and SWP activist meant helping the winning side win – all of these were campaigns, strikes, protests alongside other political people – Militant, Anarchist , Labour Party Left and non-aligned – although the Labour people always had to do stuff in opposition to their national party. Which is of course the point – the SWP thought it should be fighting alongside other people and organisations (to do otherwise would be sectarian), but tried to lead them in what seemed like the most militant direction.
I had a clerical job in the civil service and then went on to work in a University library. I was a CPSA office rep and then a Unison branch secretary – I went for those posts because the SWP rule was always try and get elected as union rep (but don’t take a post with over 50% facility time) . The SWP “union fraction” was a great school for how to be a union militant. Both Martin Smith and John McLoughlin were in the CPSA fraction , and both, whatever their subsequent role , were very effective union militants and helped many others become the same. The kind of trade unionism I learned in my SWP branches or “union fraction” was all about acually winning support from the members who elected you – “building a base” – “rank & file” - not slipping something through at a committee and hoping to get away with it .
The picture of a lonely cult talking to itself while the Thatcher juggernaut rolled on defeating all seems quite wrong to me – it really was a bit of a right wing (later New Labour ) argument of the time – Thatcher wins everything, militancy doesn’t work. And it wasn’t true
Because I remember winning many small and some big battles – wether it was going on strike to get some NF activist shifted out of a job centre in Hither Green, or just pay campaigns, which weren’t perfect, but I think won a few quid. The SWP CPSA folk (along of course with many other union people) made a real difference there.
Bigger campaigns too – most obviously the Poll Tax – it is hard to overstate how pathetic the official Labour & TUC response to this was. But a completely unofficial movement, led by a mix of Militant, Anarchist & SWP types beat it (not perfectly), but also broke Thatcher. Labour couldn’t put a dent in either , whereas a homemade, ramshackle, far left operation did.
The last years of Thatcher were a time of quite a few succesful union fights – there were very effective national NHS and nurses strikes on pay (Candy Udwin had a significant role in them) which (1) Won a big pay rise and (2) cause Thatcher’s annointed successor John Moore to disintegrate.
The 89-90 Ambulance dispute was a kind of small-re-run of the Miners Strike, except our side won. At the core was the extraordinary decision of the crews to , instead of going on strike, occupying their stations and running a parralel, unofficial ambulance service funded by whatever cash they could raise in the unions and streets. Alongside, of course, many others, SWP members were very involved in this solidarity (I remember when I got my college staff out on a completely unofficial strike in support of the ambulance strike, how many other SWP union reps I saw at the strike rally )
Theoretically, our role was to break the barrier between “politics” and “economics”. The ultimate aim was to create the conditions for workers councils (soviets) but in the here and now this meant, er, raising good political causes in the workplace – the important thing was not just relying on getting a donation from a union conference, but doing it at grassroots level – I think I started by raising a donation and message for imprisoned South African trade unionist Moses Mayekiso in th 80’s in my Civil Service office, and by the 90’s was winning support and cash from my Unison branch for the campaign to free the Cardiff 3 and the Tottenham 3. History hasn’t been to generous to the Soviets plan, but has definitely looked kindly on these causes.
I drifted away from party membership in the late 90’s, although remain in contact with a fair few party members, and helped out on this and that (Socialist Alliance election campaign) . I thought the SWP’s role in Stop the War was impressive, if (it seems more so in retrospect) flawed. A series of increasingly eccentric decisions stopped me rejoining as the kids got older, from “dissolving the branches” to Respect. But I was still happy to help out now and then
I think the basic problem is quite simple. The internal democracy was always very weak. This mattered less when the party was bigger, broader and generally following a straightforward line (and, sadly, I think a lot of us just shrugged our shoulders and ignored this problem - I only went to Party Conference once, and didn't like the somewhat hack and bullying atmosphere. Instead of doing something about it, I just avoided going again and went to Marxism instead ) . But it caused real problems as the party got older and narrower and some of the leadership upped and died – there was no mechanism to replace them. And there was no mechanism to steer the party back when the remaining leadership started making all those barmy “get-rich-quick” plans. There were some obvious signs things were going wrong even from the semi-outside – -the inexplicable rift with the US ISO. Respect, Mark Steel, Counterfire Split, but the current scandal is still quite shocking – like a small historical reenactment society doing Stalinism. I think it doesn’t show that trying to build a socialist party is wrong. It just shows you need to put a premium on internal democracy.
My decision to join the SWP wasn't so well-considered. I should have really investigated the different varieties of left-wing groups before signing up, but I joined at University (in 2003) simply because they had a presence and the SP (et al) didn't. I'm sure this is quite a common entry into the party, especially at universities. By that time I was already left-ish, having been 'radicalised' by the Iraq War.
Locally, they were good people. I'm still in touch with the organiser (who left in March and has since joined the ISN), and I got on well with the more prominent members of the local branch. It saddens me that they have sided consistently with the CC on this issue, and as far as I am aware they are still in the party. With hindsight, they were extremely antagonistic to other leftists and intolerant of any stepping outside the party line. Even when I was dedicated activist, I would happily attend meeting of the SP in a nearby town, and even discussed forming a broad socialist discussion group at Uni with a first-year SP member. I was told to involve myself only in SWP or SWP-related meetings, and focus on selling the paper and organising SWP-only events.
The most valuable experience of my time in the SWP was the educational aspect. When I joined I was left-ish, but didn't really have any knowledge of Marxism, socialism or working-class history. Through reading (pamphlets and books) as well as events like Marxism and the local 'Marxist forums' I increased my understanding of these things, even though with hindsight I have come to disagree with their interpretation of them! It also encouraged me to read more widely (I spent days reading through Marxists.org!) and think like a Marxist, which I like to think I still do to some degree. In this sense, my time in the SWP left a positive mark on me.
After only 2-3 years I began to suspect there were contradictions between the theory and practice of the Party (especially in its internal organisation), especially after coming into contact with critics and ex-members. After a party conference I was disciplined and left (as some of you know already), and to be honest it had quite an impact on me personally. It was never a 'substitute family' for me like it was/is for some university students (I lived at home and most of my friends were non-socialists), but it still hurt breaking off relationships with people I considered friends, especially in the manner in which it happened. It left a bitterness towards the Party which remains until this day, which explains why I have followed this thread so closely. I am no longer in sympathy with the Party, its aims or its strategies, not because of this bitterness but because leaving the Party opened my eyes to different interpretations of events and politics.
I should feel glad about the demise of the SWP, and in some ways I do (bitterness, political differences, and the fact I think their activities are counter-productive), but I find it difficult to feel happy about this situation, which involved abuse, bullying and intimidation. It's a horrible situation and the SWP deserve to die as a result of it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Cheers for that scribbling S.
edit: and matt too - you posted as i was replying.
edit: and matt too - you posted as i was replying.
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
I think you really identify the basic problem in your very interesting "confessions": although the SWP has done lots of good things, the fatal flaw has been the lack of democracy.
When I was a member of IS/SWP in the early 70's and became an organiser, I was unhappy with the bureaucratic way the Higgins/Palmer/Protz opposition was dealt with. I also felt that it was a tragedy to lose so many experienced working class militants (in fact, they would have been very useful come the miners' strike).
But I said nothing as I was loyal to the party (read: leadership). So I can understand the middle-of-the-roaders anguished wringing of hands during the latest conference and then their voting with the CC. I understand it, but I have no sympathy for them as they have put what they perceive to be the interests of the party (=leadership) over those of people (X, W and other women comrades), the politics of the IS/SWP tradition and the class. This will prove to be their personal tragedy.
Scribbling S
Active Member
Thanks Karmickameleon : A few of the "ex" party members I know just say - SWP inevitably reduced to a sect by low level of class struggle- but this seems to me to be just blaming the weather ("it's a fair cop, but society is to blame") - and I keep coming back to the democracy issue: Especially as the party got one last infusion of members through the struggle, the Millbank-y students, but instead of this being the boon that it should have, an anti-ageing creme for the party, it became the cause of big new cracks. Indeed all the successes of the 2000's ultimately caused loss of members, rather than growth , like Stop the War: Always because there was no way to bring the leadership and membership (and indeed wider society) together. I think in the eighties and up to the nineties there was an (unequal) parralel between some older , less authoritarian traditions (I was introduced to Serge and Luxemburg as much as Lenin) and the Centralism - plus a big enough, broad enough membership to shrug off some of the madder commands. But that wore away. So for example re: district organisers (fulltimers). These haven't played a wholly negative role in the current crisis - after all the Facebook 4 were organisers. But they do generally add to the centralism, authoritarianism of the party. And in the case of the Sheffield organiser who assaulted , harassed members, were really part of the problem. The tendency for "substitutionalism" by fulltimers was also linked to this. Now (old man voice here) in my day, we were used to some organisers being a bit bullying or hackish or would-be martinets, but the branches I was in were big enough to just ignore them or work around them. Of course, in retrospect that was a mistake. We should have pushed for the simple solution:- make them subject to local election. But at the time it seemed ok. Similarly , you can tell the "slate system" is wrong , because reforming it is so vigorously resisted but with such weak arguments. But when I was a member, while if I thought about it I wouldn't be keen , as it gave us folk that seemed pretty good to ok (Cliff, Harman etc), I could put up with the ones I didn't like (Bambery used to make my teeth itch with his shouty crap, but maybe that's just me). again, a mistake in retrospect. Especially as the possibility of rescuing something from the rubble looks very far from certain. I was a bit lucky that my active membership came more or less between two sets of expulsions (The Rank & File/Womens Voice/ANL ones before I joined I think, Ben Watson [edit - actually I mean Andy Wilson, doh!] etc around the time I was drifting away)
Last edited:
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I don't think that is why he left, he has long been of the opinion that the SWP was the best choice available rather than some great orginsation. I have a lot a respect if Ian and he's a decent bloke, I am glad he has walked. I may have said before but I don't think it is an accident that with a few exceptions most of the people I know in the SWP who I felt where decent have ended up in the opposition. And those I felt to be pricks have ended up as loyalists.
Ok, my confessions of a teenage trot...
Joined at university, having had a long conversation about why I shouldn't join the Labour club.
The SWSS group was small but vibrant and contained some really lovely, principled and thoughtful people, some of whom are still good friends.
We had fun in the grant cuts campaign, occupied etc.
Marxism was a great event in those days, (early 90s) and covered the whole of ULU, the hotel behind and SOAS. We took loads of people down.
I count myself really lucky to have met people as inspiring as Hallas, Cliff and Foot but also to have met people equally inspiring on campus and in the local branch.
There was an attempt to educate us- the local academic gave us talks at another student comrades' house. TBH I was never that well educated or read, it was more instinctive anger and the joy of campaigning, speaking and winning arguments that kept me in. We were a strong presence on campus and drew in a good periphery.
The Welling demo and the ANL were great to be involved in.
Splitting the local branches was the first real catastrophe, although I understand why it was done- it was a daft move though and fragmented the party locally rather than cementing it.
As students we were a bit AWOL in lots of ways and were often disapproved of by older members in the branches- just in a tut tut way though more than serious arguments. We could have probably done with those arguments, but with the branches split it was so hard to have them.
The student groups were generally strong at the time I think, the student office was good too. NUS conference was usually hilarious and Stack gave great pep talks.
But I found it hard personally to be thrust into having to do lots of big talks, stand for positions etc that I wasn't ready for and was never very good at doing the whole 'you see what I think' and 'actually' finger pointy sort of stuff. I was probably always a bit off message.
I just drifted away a while after starting work, not having time to attend meetings etc. I suppose it didn't all seem to fit anymore- there was no way I was going to be up to sell at the factory gates at 6am when I had to work at 7 or whatever. Also the town branch was so small and by now riven with all manner of strife. I think even if I had been better educated and read all the Lenin and Marx properly instead of fleetingly, the Trotsky biogs etc, it wouldn't have kept me in because circumstances changed, but it wasn't only personal circumstances, it was the mood in the local branches- there were no longer big meetings and it was a bit rubbish to go and give a meeting in a pub to two or three others who all knew exactly what was going to be said anyway!
I'd started to feel things were going wonky in the party both locally and nationally, there was a different mood and I started to notice things that pissed me off, and it all began to feel tired and a bit trot by numbers. Also, being on Marxism team and chairing meetings etc had shown me that it was all a bit different for the footsoldiers. I remember chairing a meeting and someone coming over and telling me which speakers to pick out of the pile of question slips etc. I know why it was done and happily accepted the discipline, but.
Then there was the Stop the War coalition which, despite its mistakes, felt so massive and powerful.
But oh dear all the Respect stuff, the Galloway stuff, the disasters of those years!
I still feel though that the only party that was or would ever be a home for me politically is the SWP, which is why I can never rejoice at what has become of it. I also know that there are countless individuals in that party- some still in it, who I would stand with anytime and in any situation and who are genuine, brave, principled activists who make a difference. It also makes me pretty sick to see some of the crowing going on and some of the sanctimonious crap on twitter like 'from left antisemites to rape apologists'.
My hope is that the SWP biting the dust will free the way for some kind of new force on the left, since it's so drastically needed.
Joined at university, having had a long conversation about why I shouldn't join the Labour club.
The SWSS group was small but vibrant and contained some really lovely, principled and thoughtful people, some of whom are still good friends.
We had fun in the grant cuts campaign, occupied etc.
Marxism was a great event in those days, (early 90s) and covered the whole of ULU, the hotel behind and SOAS. We took loads of people down.
I count myself really lucky to have met people as inspiring as Hallas, Cliff and Foot but also to have met people equally inspiring on campus and in the local branch.
There was an attempt to educate us- the local academic gave us talks at another student comrades' house. TBH I was never that well educated or read, it was more instinctive anger and the joy of campaigning, speaking and winning arguments that kept me in. We were a strong presence on campus and drew in a good periphery.
The Welling demo and the ANL were great to be involved in.
Splitting the local branches was the first real catastrophe, although I understand why it was done- it was a daft move though and fragmented the party locally rather than cementing it.
As students we were a bit AWOL in lots of ways and were often disapproved of by older members in the branches- just in a tut tut way though more than serious arguments. We could have probably done with those arguments, but with the branches split it was so hard to have them.
The student groups were generally strong at the time I think, the student office was good too. NUS conference was usually hilarious and Stack gave great pep talks.
But I found it hard personally to be thrust into having to do lots of big talks, stand for positions etc that I wasn't ready for and was never very good at doing the whole 'you see what I think' and 'actually' finger pointy sort of stuff. I was probably always a bit off message.
I just drifted away a while after starting work, not having time to attend meetings etc. I suppose it didn't all seem to fit anymore- there was no way I was going to be up to sell at the factory gates at 6am when I had to work at 7 or whatever. Also the town branch was so small and by now riven with all manner of strife. I think even if I had been better educated and read all the Lenin and Marx properly instead of fleetingly, the Trotsky biogs etc, it wouldn't have kept me in because circumstances changed, but it wasn't only personal circumstances, it was the mood in the local branches- there were no longer big meetings and it was a bit rubbish to go and give a meeting in a pub to two or three others who all knew exactly what was going to be said anyway!
I'd started to feel things were going wonky in the party both locally and nationally, there was a different mood and I started to notice things that pissed me off, and it all began to feel tired and a bit trot by numbers. Also, being on Marxism team and chairing meetings etc had shown me that it was all a bit different for the footsoldiers. I remember chairing a meeting and someone coming over and telling me which speakers to pick out of the pile of question slips etc. I know why it was done and happily accepted the discipline, but.
Then there was the Stop the War coalition which, despite its mistakes, felt so massive and powerful.
But oh dear all the Respect stuff, the Galloway stuff, the disasters of those years!
I still feel though that the only party that was or would ever be a home for me politically is the SWP, which is why I can never rejoice at what has become of it. I also know that there are countless individuals in that party- some still in it, who I would stand with anytime and in any situation and who are genuine, brave, principled activists who make a difference. It also makes me pretty sick to see some of the crowing going on and some of the sanctimonious crap on twitter like 'from left antisemites to rape apologists'.
My hope is that the SWP biting the dust will free the way for some kind of new force on the left, since it's so drastically needed.
Scribbling S
Active Member
Sorry, Andy Wilson for proposing his "the Assassin" ,mag 1994- I was still a member, and active in some ways, but not enough to grasp what had happened
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I dont think anyone quite grasped what had happened at the time, including the people who'd expelled him.
benedict
Well-Known Member
Makes a lot of sense sense.
Within the loyalist camp though we should remember there are also those too lily-livered to move one way or the other. A current CC member (Joseph C) falls (or at least fell) into this camp and, during a period of much inner turmoil, was discreetly telling oppositionists in December of last year that he'd walk if the January conference represented a whitewash. It did. He didn't. The tension with the Prof is tangible in the leaked minutes of the ISJ editorial committee spring meeting. I'm sure there are so many others occupying a similar position.
benedict
Well-Known Member
This was my experience too. Does anyone else recall a full-timer Helen S. around in the early 2000s I think as student organizer? Fine pair of lungs. Not hesitant to use them either. The SWP certainly seemed to act as a magnet for certain brand of shouty in yer face radical.
[By the way thanks so much ScribblingS, and others, for the wonderful and interesting personal reflections. Great posts.]
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
did meetings on marxism & feminism today at this years Marxism
one of the best written things I have read about all this .. thanks
Vladtheimpaler
Active Member
Hi folks! New kid on this block, but an ancient old fart compared with most of you! First joined the SWP in 1979 (god help us!) from an anarchist/libertarian communist background but, through involvement with ANL, impressed by how much better they got their shit together than the stoned hippies & mouthy but useless punks I'd been hanging out with up till then. Been in and out ever since, a permanent oppositionist to the party's authoritarian tendencies & regarded by the hacks as very dodgy as a result, dropping out at moments of extreme idiocy (e.g. support for the Ayatollahs, bigging up Galloway), actually in many ways more active & effective in my time in 'the wilderness', but lured back at critical junctures when it seemed the wind was in the party's sails & they were achieving some kind of hegemony in the struggle. Finally & totally pissed off by the whole Delta fiasco, partly by the disgusting misogynist mishandling of the particular case but mostly by its exposure of the bogus, farcical nature of the party's pretences to 'democratic centralism'. Resigned after the March conference & was one of those who helped to set up the ISN. Have gradually become a bit disillusioned with this as an alternative as it's really only united by the negatives - opposition to the SWP - & far too amorphous in its positives. Worried that the predictions by oppositionist friends still in the party (well, at least until the latest conference) that it would soon drift away from class struggle into identity politics & compromises with reformism are being proved correct. See the best hope for the future as an alliance between the left of ISN & the more principled recent departees (e.g. Birchall & Renton & many others less well known) to rebuild in a way that treats democracy and opposition to oppression as more than just cynical nostrums.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Welcome Vlad, we are a friendly bunch who will offer you biscuits, and steal your bootlaces.
There will be arguments. But it's usually all in good faith.
There will be arguments. But it's usually all in good faith.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
And you'd be surprised about how old some of us are
Yes Boss/ Kieron!
E.J.?
Vladtheimpaler
Active Member
I wasn't exactly a spring chicken in '79, companero! But, hey, I'm still down with the kidz. Once I get my zimmer frame in position, I can shake my funky butt with the best of 'em!
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Yes exactly, the context may be adverse, but the key problem is that of democracy. Quite erroneously, the slate system seemed logical when those "chosen" were the big "beasts": Cliff, Hallas, Harman (and even Callinicos, German, Rees, Bambery...!), but now in the cold light of day we realise that this system is seriously flawed and of course highly undemocratic. Ditto for the appointment of organisers.
In retrospect, it is clear that the democratic opposition in SWP missed their great opportunity in 2008 when they should have pushed for a real democratic reform instead of being fobbed off with a tokenistic Democracy Commission.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
the clue is in the title of this website.
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
If anyone is interested, the following post from Michael Rosen is causing quite a lot of discussion on Facebook, including from a number of loyalists such as the leading muppet, John Mullen. Anyway, here it is:
I am becoming increasingly concerned that a range of extremely serious allegations have been made here on facebook by people as part of their resignation letters from the SWP or in posts following their resignations. Some of these come from people who were in the party for ten years, twenty years or more. These allegations are distinct from those made by people who have become disenchanted or who came to disagree with the way the SWP conducts its usual daily affairs. They are specific and detailed and, if true, are of concern to anyone who takes part in meetings or campaigns in which the SWP acting as the SWP is involved. That's to say, the allegations are made about actions taken by the SWP's 'governing body', its Central Committee. I'm not going to list them but they are in toto an assemblage of what we might call wrongdoings on any account, but particularly when looking at an organisation that makes claims to be about liberation, justice, equality, the end of exploitation and oppression.
As an individual - usually acting alone - I have no way of verifying or contradicting these accusations. However, though they're coming thick and fast, I have to date not seen a careful reply to them from the SWP. It's as if the organisation has a policy of treating them with disdain as if they are self-evidently rubbish and/or made by people whose motives are suspect. However, it would seem that the consequence of this attitude is that the organisation itself is getting smaller and smaller. From the 'outside' (as I am) it also comes over as a disdain for those of us who know we will be appealed to join campaigns, take part in meetings and the like. We too are asked to take them as self-evidently not true. But I'm suggesting that that's a bridge too far. The SWP cannot assume that those of us on the outside can or will take these allegations as self-evidently not true.
I personally have only a few problems with working alongside individuals who are members of the SWP - though I know there are some people who are now refusing to do that. The problem remains however when it comes to anything that is, as it were, officially an SWP event and/or an event organised by one of the bodies the SWP as the SWP set up. If it's not clear already, the reason why I have a problem is that these allegations are too serious to be left unanswered. Or put another way, the sources of the allegations are clearly not flippant, not made lightly, not made by people who just float about the edges of left organisations (like me!), but by people who gave decades of their lives to the very same organisation they are accusing of wrong-doing.
If anyone is curious about what I'm talking about, all they need to do is follow a line of facebook contributors, from my timeline, or threads on my timeline. Perhaps some of them will post their names and links on to the end of this post so that people can see what it is I'm talking about. One website belonging to jimjepps.net is gathering it all up anyway.
Please note: I am not saying that all - or even some - of these allegations are necessarily true. My position is that it is not sufficient for those of us on the left to be given little or no reply to them. But....how arrogant of us who are not even members or (in my case never were) to 'demand' this of the SWP! Yes, true but that's because we are appealed to, invited to join in with that party's activities. So, speaking as a minority of one, I'm appealing back to the SWP: just for one moment, never mind the stuff about why your organisation is the most perfectly equipped means by which humanity will reach utopia, never mind all the stuff about how you and only you are poised to be in the most perfect place to lead this or that resistance. You won't lead anything at all, or be equipped to deal with anything, or even find that you're welcome in campaigns, if you don't deal with what you're accused of by people who up until recently were amongst your most loyal, most active members - and in some cases - officials.
So - again, to be clear - it's not me making these allegations. You have already shown that you are happy to try to splat people like me 'on the outside' - on occasions making up hooey to suit the case. (I don't ever expect a reply or an apology for the lie directed at me during this matter, even though I appealed to you to rectify your lie. But as I don't expect it, neither can you expect from me co-operation. We can call that quits.) The allegations come from people who were 'your own'. They're not even people who you've expelled.
There. I don't think I can be clearer.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that a range of extremely serious allegations have been made here on facebook by people as part of their resignation letters from the SWP or in posts following their resignations. Some of these come from people who were in the party for ten years, twenty years or more. These allegations are distinct from those made by people who have become disenchanted or who came to disagree with the way the SWP conducts its usual daily affairs. They are specific and detailed and, if true, are of concern to anyone who takes part in meetings or campaigns in which the SWP acting as the SWP is involved. That's to say, the allegations are made about actions taken by the SWP's 'governing body', its Central Committee. I'm not going to list them but they are in toto an assemblage of what we might call wrongdoings on any account, but particularly when looking at an organisation that makes claims to be about liberation, justice, equality, the end of exploitation and oppression.
As an individual - usually acting alone - I have no way of verifying or contradicting these accusations. However, though they're coming thick and fast, I have to date not seen a careful reply to them from the SWP. It's as if the organisation has a policy of treating them with disdain as if they are self-evidently rubbish and/or made by people whose motives are suspect. However, it would seem that the consequence of this attitude is that the organisation itself is getting smaller and smaller. From the 'outside' (as I am) it also comes over as a disdain for those of us who know we will be appealed to join campaigns, take part in meetings and the like. We too are asked to take them as self-evidently not true. But I'm suggesting that that's a bridge too far. The SWP cannot assume that those of us on the outside can or will take these allegations as self-evidently not true.
I personally have only a few problems with working alongside individuals who are members of the SWP - though I know there are some people who are now refusing to do that. The problem remains however when it comes to anything that is, as it were, officially an SWP event and/or an event organised by one of the bodies the SWP as the SWP set up. If it's not clear already, the reason why I have a problem is that these allegations are too serious to be left unanswered. Or put another way, the sources of the allegations are clearly not flippant, not made lightly, not made by people who just float about the edges of left organisations (like me!), but by people who gave decades of their lives to the very same organisation they are accusing of wrong-doing.
If anyone is curious about what I'm talking about, all they need to do is follow a line of facebook contributors, from my timeline, or threads on my timeline. Perhaps some of them will post their names and links on to the end of this post so that people can see what it is I'm talking about. One website belonging to jimjepps.net is gathering it all up anyway.
Please note: I am not saying that all - or even some - of these allegations are necessarily true. My position is that it is not sufficient for those of us on the left to be given little or no reply to them. But....how arrogant of us who are not even members or (in my case never were) to 'demand' this of the SWP! Yes, true but that's because we are appealed to, invited to join in with that party's activities. So, speaking as a minority of one, I'm appealing back to the SWP: just for one moment, never mind the stuff about why your organisation is the most perfectly equipped means by which humanity will reach utopia, never mind all the stuff about how you and only you are poised to be in the most perfect place to lead this or that resistance. You won't lead anything at all, or be equipped to deal with anything, or even find that you're welcome in campaigns, if you don't deal with what you're accused of by people who up until recently were amongst your most loyal, most active members - and in some cases - officials.
So - again, to be clear - it's not me making these allegations. You have already shown that you are happy to try to splat people like me 'on the outside' - on occasions making up hooey to suit the case. (I don't ever expect a reply or an apology for the lie directed at me during this matter, even though I appealed to you to rectify your lie. But as I don't expect it, neither can you expect from me co-operation. We can call that quits.) The allegations come from people who were 'your own'. They're not even people who you've expelled.
There. I don't think I can be clearer.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
What allegations is he talking about? The same ones we've been discussing here forever, or something new?
The stuff like deleting emails and the way the CC conducts its business. Plus the details in Renton's and others replies. Nothing new to this thread at all. In fact, I just thought "that's pretty naive". However, the only loyalist argument on there appears to be "well we don't believe it but we'll only tell you why in private"
Similar threads
