xslavearcx
time for a nu-metal revival?
I'm not youth either, buts its important to know the lingo of the street if you want rhyme to the beat of the revolution...
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
fwiw i agree with Red Cat that bolshieboy's posts have been completely misinterpreted - and i share with bolshieboy a surprise at the naivety of the likes of Tom Walker's article in light of the IS traditions actual theoretical legacy on issues related to, for example, gender emancipation. electric.light gives some examples of the theory above*. there has been a shift away from IS theory in recent years in the SWP, in particular amongst the youth. this is mainly down to the utterly appalling level of political education within the SWP (which i was moaning about at the start of this thread) and also the leadership's unwillingness to record its own history (members knowing the history of their own organisation is dangerous for an organisation which attempts to control debates through a quasi-theological adherence to an unblemished tradition of theoretical perfection from above). as a result, young SWP members in particular have been moulded by more general political trends on the left (towards identity politics, privilege politics and the rest) which has been fine for the leadership, since it has had no impact what with the SWP not being democratic at all.
the reason this is important to note is that the movement will influence the potential direction of anything that might emerge from the coming fight/split. the AMM and more loosely the Revolutionary History Journal, for a long time, were the focusses around which adherents to the old IS tradition gathered - and it has been through them that most of the gains in terms of reintroducing discussion and debate to the party made in recent years have occurred. the party's history was unearthed, discussed, debated - texts which rest in the SWP's canon (but were very rarely actually brought out into the open) were provocatively posted up in public and debated as an uncomfortable challenge to the leadership to conform to their own, claimed, theoretical legacy. Tony Cliff's biography by Ian Birchall came out last year, a product of the cross-over between these two organisations and the result of their increasing influence (Birchall had for years been completely marginalised by the CC - it was pretty surprising they agreed to publish him). however these developments have effectively been a discussion taking place only within a specific layer of the SWP - as the broader membership and particularly the youth are often of shockingly low quality.
naturally, when accusations of sexual harrassment/rape start coming into the picture, it was the members around these IS circles who mounted the most vocal criticisms of the leadership. the rest is history, and we know at least a bit about it now. when the four were expelled, i hoped that this would be the icing on the cake - that these events would discredit the organisation beyond the point at which this "DO" were prepared to continue ploughing their energies into saving it. what i hadn't anticipated was the readiness of the DO to assimilate the likes of Seymour et al into its campaign. at the moment, it appears that these voices are if anything claiming the limelight - and i have been disappointed to see the original DO members imo opportunistically pushing a line that centres around broad cultural arguments about patriarchal attitudes amongst the left (i.e. Laurie Penny's argument) AS WELL AS the structural issues around the SWP which actually allowed these events to occur, be hushed up, and then hatchet-jobbed through disputes.
there's absolutely nothing in the traditional IS theory which was the cause of the events which occurred between Delta, W and X. it simply isn't the case that there are people arguing that rape shouldn't be taken seriously, that issues of class are incompatible or superior to the question of feminism, or that the issue today is of women making an 'unreasonable' fuss about matters which simply aren't that important (all positions taken from Laurie Penny's article which was widely read and distributed amongst the DO and beyond). the below, glib cartoon has also done the rounds recently on facebook between the dissenters:
i also don't agree that there is an embedded 'rape culture' which has permeated parts of the left, whereby many men think it is acceptable to sexually harrass/assault women. quite the opposite in the SWP, as the case around the expulsion of the night club fighting guy mentioned earlier should demonstrate! even accusations of being 'macho' are enough to have you thrown out. what is the case is that the SWP itself is a shady, hierarchical, undemocratic and more importantly generally unaccountable organisation, and CC members such as Martin Smith are essentially able to act with impunity within its social circles - their personal moral standards not being subject to remotely the same level of scrutiny as anyone else (Bakunin made a good post earlier on the 'Mafiosa' style culture of the SWP in this regard). the unwillingness of some members to take W's allegations seriously wasn't a cultural issue in relation to opinions on women, it was a cultural issue in regards to a complete deference to the party's authority and a product of the SWPs particular internal environment.
on the question of structural accountability, the new identity politickers and Seymour's crowd have found a common ground with the original expellees, but this is an unholy marriage of interests. i hope that the fusion won't drown out the potentially progressive conclusion which could have been reached, but to my mind Seymour's voice appears to be by far the most powerful within the ranks of most of the current dissenters. he has effectively been re-writing the theoretical political education of most SWP members over the past 6-7 years, far more focussed on a post-STW communitarian, multicultural, identity-politics, liberal anti-racist, politically correct line.
*though i think the accusation of being 'soft' on issues of domestic abuse etc does somewhat overlook the more general strategical comment that the most dominant strand of contemporary feminism focusses the vast bulk of its propaganda and attentions onto victimhood as opposed to strength
the reason this is important to note is that the movement will influence the potential direction of anything that might emerge from the coming fight/split. the AMM and more loosely the Revolutionary History Journal, for a long time, were the focusses around which adherents to the old IS tradition gathered - and it has been through them that most of the gains in terms of reintroducing discussion and debate to the party made in recent years have occurred. the party's history was unearthed, discussed, debated - texts which rest in the SWP's canon (but were very rarely actually brought out into the open) were provocatively posted up in public and debated as an uncomfortable challenge to the leadership to conform to their own, claimed, theoretical legacy. Tony Cliff's biography by Ian Birchall came out last year, a product of the cross-over between these two organisations and the result of their increasing influence (Birchall had for years been completely marginalised by the CC - it was pretty surprising they agreed to publish him). however these developments have effectively been a discussion taking place only within a specific layer of the SWP - as the broader membership and particularly the youth are often of shockingly low quality.
naturally, when accusations of sexual harrassment/rape start coming into the picture, it was the members around these IS circles who mounted the most vocal criticisms of the leadership. the rest is history, and we know at least a bit about it now. when the four were expelled, i hoped that this would be the icing on the cake - that these events would discredit the organisation beyond the point at which this "DO" were prepared to continue ploughing their energies into saving it. what i hadn't anticipated was the readiness of the DO to assimilate the likes of Seymour et al into its campaign. at the moment, it appears that these voices are if anything claiming the limelight - and i have been disappointed to see the original DO members imo opportunistically pushing a line that centres around broad cultural arguments about patriarchal attitudes amongst the left (i.e. Laurie Penny's argument) AS WELL AS the structural issues around the SWP which actually allowed these events to occur, be hushed up, and then hatchet-jobbed through disputes.
there's absolutely nothing in the traditional IS theory which was the cause of the events which occurred between Delta, W and X. it simply isn't the case that there are people arguing that rape shouldn't be taken seriously, that issues of class are incompatible or superior to the question of feminism, or that the issue today is of women making an 'unreasonable' fuss about matters which simply aren't that important (all positions taken from Laurie Penny's article which was widely read and distributed amongst the DO and beyond). the below, glib cartoon has also done the rounds recently on facebook between the dissenters:
i also don't agree that there is an embedded 'rape culture' which has permeated parts of the left, whereby many men think it is acceptable to sexually harrass/assault women. quite the opposite in the SWP, as the case around the expulsion of the night club fighting guy mentioned earlier should demonstrate! even accusations of being 'macho' are enough to have you thrown out. what is the case is that the SWP itself is a shady, hierarchical, undemocratic and more importantly generally unaccountable organisation, and CC members such as Martin Smith are essentially able to act with impunity within its social circles - their personal moral standards not being subject to remotely the same level of scrutiny as anyone else (Bakunin made a good post earlier on the 'Mafiosa' style culture of the SWP in this regard). the unwillingness of some members to take W's allegations seriously wasn't a cultural issue in relation to opinions on women, it was a cultural issue in regards to a complete deference to the party's authority and a product of the SWPs particular internal environment.
on the question of structural accountability, the new identity politickers and Seymour's crowd have found a common ground with the original expellees, but this is an unholy marriage of interests. i hope that the fusion won't drown out the potentially progressive conclusion which could have been reached, but to my mind Seymour's voice appears to be by far the most powerful within the ranks of most of the current dissenters. he has effectively been re-writing the theoretical political education of most SWP members over the past 6-7 years, far more focussed on a post-STW communitarian, multicultural, identity-politics, liberal anti-racist, politically correct line.
*though i think the accusation of being 'soft' on issues of domestic abuse etc does somewhat overlook the more general strategical comment that the most dominant strand of contemporary feminism focusses the vast bulk of its propaganda and attentions onto victimhood as opposed to strength
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Slimy horrible cunt...well thats par for the course...trounced ...you prick....its not about fucking point scoring yfa....why are they not responding...gmab
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
I think the explanation from emanymton is more likely. He is implying the CC knew it was far more serious than just an affair that got messy. That could well be the case.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
There's an alternative explanation too. I notice that W resumed her complaint after the SWP clarified their stance on Assange/Galloway. It could well be that W previously hadn't understood the previous complaint to be rape. There's a lot of misunderstanding/myths about rape out there, including but not limited to sex when someone is asleep/passed out and not able to consent.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
This could well be the case. But Seymour is suggesting that the CC knew that the allegations were far more seriously than a messy affair at the very least. The post above from a delegate who was at the conference seems to suggest that this was the case.
If it turns out that the CC knew that Martin Smith was giving a speech and lapping up a standing ovation and at the same time knew that he had serious allegations against them, they really are low lifes.
As it happens I agree with BB that the political criticisms, although they overlap, are in some ways separate as well. There are some good criticisms about the SWPs interpretation of democratic centralism, their attitude to united fronts, their total isolation from the working class. However there is also an overlap in the fact that these politics have also helped to create a semi-cultish organisation where the leadership is totally unaccountable.
At the very least Martin Smith presumably must have known that he had serious allegations against him. To stand at a conference in that situation and milk up applause must show what kind of person he is.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Not even slightly out of context no. I can give him a certain amount of slack for that crass statement given that he was in his nineties when he made it. I can't really give Socialist Appeal any fucking slack for printing it without comment though.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
socialist appeal really seem to try to make themselves into a sort of 1950s version of militant imo.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
OK, that's a bit clearer now. I used to read Seymour's blog quite a bit and I know he does take quite an identity politics like line on some of this stuff, I think you may be right about that. But I still don't see anything in that Tom's letter that marks him out as a 'feminist' (in the sense you're using the term) - all he says is that there's a particular point on which Marxists and feminists would agree. I think he's right fwiw.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
thats a very interesting post das uberdog. what would you say the reasons for the low political education in the swp are though? seems to me that it wasn't always like this. and the impression i've got ever since i've been involved in this sort of thing is that the swp have been far more accommodatory towards identity politics etc (dunno if thats the right word) and a lot less "marxist" than the SP for example, are you saying that they're not though and the fact that many members do so is down to poor political education as to their actual views?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I see that John Molyneux has broken his silence... sort of. Everyone's favourite absolutely tame "oppositionist" emerged blinking from his cave somewhere in Ireland to "like" a comment by a certain "Josh Clarke" on Callinicos' facebook wall. The comment points to the single line about "old dogmas" on feminism in one of Seymour's articles and claims that this is the core politics of the dispute. Molyneux approves of this dismissal.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yeah, DU's post has clarified a few things for me. Some of the stuff I've overheard and picked up from one line comments on facebook and the like now make a lot more sense.
DU - would you agree that if the expelless and the identity politickers can't get the CC to back down/make concessions/whatever they're unlikely to form their own group, or at least if they do it won't last very long given the political differences?
Also in reply to Froggy - I guess with some of the stuff the SWP have done around STW, Respect and UAF a low level of political education has suited the CC. And given that in united front work their practical politics has often been more like identity politics than applied Marxism it's perfectly possible that the identity politickers (great term by the way DU
) took this as confirmation that theirs was the line that truly reflected the IS tradition.
I'm certainly surprised by some of that Cliff stuff - I was never encouraged to read any of that when I was in the SWP, I was given more recently printed stuff, mostly by CC members, that couldn't be considered Marxist in any real sense - more justifications of whatever it was they were doing (eg. Martin Smith on how to defeat the BNP). And since I got into reading more serious Marxist stuff off independent of them I never really touched on Cliff - I went straight to Marx and Engels. I'd always assumed that the identity stuff was their politics - and in terms of what they were actually doing it was and that's a very big part of the reason why I left and joined the SP, who as an unrepentant Marxist were closer to my politics in practice as well as theory.
DU - would you agree that if the expelless and the identity politickers can't get the CC to back down/make concessions/whatever they're unlikely to form their own group, or at least if they do it won't last very long given the political differences?
Also in reply to Froggy - I guess with some of the stuff the SWP have done around STW, Respect and UAF a low level of political education has suited the CC. And given that in united front work their practical politics has often been more like identity politics than applied Marxism it's perfectly possible that the identity politickers (great term by the way DU
) took this as confirmation that theirs was the line that truly reflected the IS tradition.I'm certainly surprised by some of that Cliff stuff - I was never encouraged to read any of that when I was in the SWP, I was given more recently printed stuff, mostly by CC members, that couldn't be considered Marxist in any real sense - more justifications of whatever it was they were doing (eg. Martin Smith on how to defeat the BNP). And since I got into reading more serious Marxist stuff off independent of them I never really touched on Cliff - I went straight to Marx and Engels. I'd always assumed that the identity stuff was their politics - and in terms of what they were actually doing it was and that's a very big part of the reason why I left and joined the SP, who as an unrepentant Marxist were closer to my politics in practice as well as theory.
Trendy Trot
New Member
Not only did Martin Smith lie to the conference that year, through his lies he encouraged other comrades to make statements they must be aghast at now.
Because he said it was a consensual affair that had simply gone wrong, and that sometimes in personal relationships we do things we're not proud of, other comrades then got up and said they too had done things they weren't proud of in the personal sphere.
I remember one particularly well respected male UNITE member, naively trying to defend Smith, while agreeing he also had "skeletons in his closet". I doubt they were of the magnitude of those in Smith's.
No wonder so many SWP members are so angry now, they were used by Martin Smith and the CC to inadvertently cover up sexual assault allegations.
As I have posted before, there were/are a lot of great people in the SWP but they treated like idiots by their leadership.
Because he said it was a consensual affair that had simply gone wrong, and that sometimes in personal relationships we do things we're not proud of, other comrades then got up and said they too had done things they weren't proud of in the personal sphere.
I remember one particularly well respected male UNITE member, naively trying to defend Smith, while agreeing he also had "skeletons in his closet". I doubt they were of the magnitude of those in Smith's.
No wonder so many SWP members are so angry now, they were used by Martin Smith and the CC to inadvertently cover up sexual assault allegations.
As I have posted before, there were/are a lot of great people in the SWP but they treated like idiots by their leadership.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I think that this sets up a false opposition between two clearly delineated trends, where there isn't such an opposition or at least there isn't such clarity. Seymour was in the faction, he was also, as I understand it, one of the people involved in the original discussion that was used to expel the four. And he seems pretty matey with both the expelled and Andy Wilson, at least online. I don't think that these people see themselves as an uncomfortable alliance of "find the lost treasure of Tony Cliff Thought" purists and identity politics types.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
he has shared some of the democratic criticisms of the Wilson group for a while, but there has been little crossover and he's never been involved actively in any of the circles around AMM or RHJ (the latter in particular are pretty hostile to his politics). as for his involvement in the faction, i don't believe he was one of the initial organisers though he has joined it. there is certainly a delineation between the different circles from what i can see.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
frogwoman said:
i'd say it was that for a long time, the leadership haven't had any vested interest in maintaining an educated membership... in fact, when members educate themselves, things have often become awkward within the oppressive internal environment of the organisation. for a long while the SWP hasn't been following any coherent long-term strategy, not actively pushing things forward in any cohesive way whatsoever, but simply living off its past successes and existing through various different money-spinning structures like UAF. as i argued at the beginning of the thread, i have come to the conclusion that the leadership (and many branch level hacks) have simply come to the position where they are more concerned with maintaining their 'society' and their way of life than actually achieving anything. an education in some of the core, and quite intelligent arguments of the IS tradition can't help but make you critical of, for example, UAF's claim to the tradition of Cable St. and Lewisham, the SWP's attitude towards Trade Unions (the old IS line even ha it that SWP members were barred from taking top jobs in TUs, and that the focus should always be on politically convincing the grass roots rather than seizing the structures of innately 'reformist' organisations... this 'socialism from below' line is still what's spouted officially as the line though no-one really reads it or pays that much notice)... and everything else.
SpineyNorman said:
i think they might even end up getting hoovered up by ACI, counterfire and Bambery's ISG group up North... that or disappear into the aether. tentative predictions, i hope i'm wrong!
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
What exactly are you saying are "his politics"? And in what sense are the people around Revolutionary History hostile to them?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
"...great people..."? Steady on.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Professional bag carrier for Blairism A Very Public Sociologist has a not particularly good new piece up which does however contain the following interesting claim:
"Off the top of my head, Sheffield and Leeds are pretty much solid oppositionists. The local branch here in Stoke are supportive of the rebellion. And the large (in far left terms) Birmingham organisation is said to be on the verge of decamping en masse."
"Off the top of my head, Sheffield and Leeds are pretty much solid oppositionists. The local branch here in Stoke are supportive of the rebellion. And the large (in far left terms) Birmingham organisation is said to be on the verge of decamping en masse."
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
He's definitely wrong about Sheffield so I'd take the rest with a pinch of salt.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Give us a full report from the Sheffield trenches!
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I don't know all the ins and outs but judging from facebook it looks like it's split about 50/50, with the dissidents coming almost exclusively from the student groups.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I think you mean yoot daddyo
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
his politics, as i mentioned in the big post above, are multiculturalist, identity politics led, communitarian - as far as i'm concerned it's basically radical liberalism. he's got very little intuitive class identity in anything, and usually uses the term [class] vaguely as a word for something 'good' or that he supports. he's in favour of political correctness, has a hyper-sensitive radar for 'offence' and he would certainly disagree with the Tony Cliff paragraph posted above.
i know of at least one ex Swap around RHJ who gets in periodic fracas with him over these points, and the others i know are far too serious minded Marxist historians to have any time for his new age crap.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Nigel Irritable
if this helps clarify anything further, here's an excerpt from an article published in 1987 and written by Ted Crawford, one of the leading figures behind RHJ. read it for yourself and the friction between his and Seymour's positions today are clear.
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/newint/Is.html
if this helps clarify anything further, here's an excerpt from an article published in 1987 and written by Ted Crawford, one of the leading figures behind RHJ. read it for yourself and the friction between his and Seymour's positions today are clear.
Ted Crawford said:
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/newint/Is.html
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Socialist swingers - big in the seventies, one supposes.sexual life-stylers?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Well yes, he's about half an inch from the views expressed by a nonagenarian Ted Grant in that awful interview that was posted a few pages back. I very much doubt if that particular line has any particular traction in today's SWP.
Similar threads
