Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
just an example for you of how the political trends are divergent, that's all
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Sure, it's just that I'm a bit dubious that any part of the SWP "revolt" is particularly influenced by the views of a Crawford or an Al Richardson on that sort of question.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Yup you would go to an 'educational' and put your Citreon Dyane car keys or if you were a student the key to your bike lock , in a gold fish bowl and then give it to Chris Harman who would say who was the lucky winner.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
no it's not, which is kind of my point. the nub of the group who have been campaigning for year in the organisation were fleshing out these old IS positions, and those expelled were linked to these groups, but in practice they've been overwhelmed by events and those ideas haven't been important whatsoever.
eta: Nigel Irritable
eta: Nigel Irritable
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
But it is that half inch that we live and breathe in.
Not sure that Ted Crawfords statement is part of the IS tradition anyway
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yeah Im sure the article is making good points but some of the language used i cant really take seriously
I want to know more about these mao-spontaneists.. they appear to be anarchists/autonomists so I'm a bit confused about the mao connection unless it's a French word. Sounds like something PD would come up with just from its name.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Speaking of which, Liverpool John Moore's University SWSS has come out in support of the Leeds SWSS statement.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It was mostly a French thing, marrying the incoherence of Maoism with the incoherence of Anarchism to produce a perfectly incoherent union.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
That's interesting as a background note, but really, that sort of line was never going to get anywhere, either in the SWP or more generally. There's no audience for it.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
wrt that specific statement, sure - all that is is one peson's account of the IS. irt to the culture and theorisations of the IS more broadly, i don't necessarily agree - and i actually think that if this most recent conference hadn't been overshadowed by the DC issue, the conference would have actually been subjected to a really vigorous political debate this time around. as i said at the start of the thread, the four expelled had a wide audience and were all a part of these discussions, in particular around AMM, and had made consistent and real progress in improving the internal nature of the organisation.
sexual life-stylers?
not swingers people like us
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I am not sure what the connection is with the notion of 'the IS tradition' and Wilson's very internal looking 'lets elect the Control Commsion' circa 1994. Tell me more about what you think the political difference is between the IS tradition and the modern day SWP.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
i think the contrast is twofold, both between the SWP's canon of theory and its practical theory (the Cliff stuff before is an example - compared to say Seymour today) and also organisationally (the IS was conceived of as a discussion/propaganda group in the main, rather than a political party). it would take aeons to go through every position
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
btw i also don't want to repeat the mistake made earlier in this thread of looking like i want a return to the IS, that's not what i'm saying. this should all be read specifically in the tangent of the issues raised by bolshieboy
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
The IS was never conceived of as just a discussion /propaganda group. I agree that it didn't see itself as a democratic centralist party but the IS grew out of activity just as much as out of ideas.
I don't know what to think of all of this. It's hard not to feel happy about the Party collapsing, especially as a lot of those who have been expelled, or are now in opposition, or who now disagree with the handling of this case, were historically so pro-CC, so intolerant of any opposition or critical voices, and went along with everything the CC did for years and years. Look at John Rees for example. He liked to dish it out but when the tables were turned, suddenly he realised the structures were undemocratic and unfair. A bit like Trotsky in the 1920s too...
I mean, Richard Seymour arguing that the CC "might think about creating more pluralistic party structures, ending the ban on factions outside of conference season and rethinking the way elections take place." Where the hell was Seymour when Molyneux raised these issues in a more nuanced and tamer way about 5-6 years ago? Oh, he voted against Molyneux didn't he?
On the other hand, the DC/rape case debacle is sickening so it's hard to feel happy about any of this.
I mean, Richard Seymour arguing that the CC "might think about creating more pluralistic party structures, ending the ban on factions outside of conference season and rethinking the way elections take place." Where the hell was Seymour when Molyneux raised these issues in a more nuanced and tamer way about 5-6 years ago? Oh, he voted against Molyneux didn't he?
On the other hand, the DC/rape case debacle is sickening so it's hard to feel happy about any of this.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
If the opposition is somehow linked with the Association of Musical Marxists I think you will after watching the video that they are not going to be a pole of attraction for anyone wanting to change the world:
discokermit
Well-Known Member
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
I think that whatever you think of them the SWP of the 1970's/early '80's had talent in spades, even though I disagree with their conclusions, so I'd agree it seems things weren't always like that. I've heard explanations as to why they failed to promote talent to replace that leadership involving the rules on factions leading to splits, and the lack of regional structures meaning it was hard to step from local to national positions so maybe that's a factor... But I'd agree, it sometimes shocks me how little SWP members seem to know about their own party, I mean I've met branch organisers who had never heard of TUSC, or weren't sure if they were in or out of the NSSN at the moment. That's worrying because it suggests these people are just running branches freestyle; the papers come in the post every week and they just go sell 'em, without ever talking to the other branches/leadership. Maybe it's just me that finds that odd but I just imagine people going "Whats the line? Fuck it, lets make it up." I find it amazing that different branches sometimes have different political positions. I met two whole branches a couple of years back who wouldn't speak to each other. Communication doesn't seem to happen much, never mind political education. I just don't understand how that could be possible in a world with telephones, trains, and the internet.
One of the reasons behind this is because Trotskyite sects generally don't like branches to communicate with each other, two branches talking to each other is sign of a secret faction that could threaten the leadership. It's pure paranoia. It's like Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq war, wouldn't allow any 2 of his generals to talk to each other over the phone, because he thought two generals wanting to speak to each other was evidence of a coup. It's paranoia common to any heirachical group. Controlling the means of communicating to the membership is one of the key things needed to maintain an oligarchy.
And in the Socialist Party, although I'm not invovled with them at the moment, this was also a problem. I barely remember any contact with other regional branches. However I get the feeling branches are given a bit more autonomy in the Socialist Party then in the SWP, there's certainly never been any sort of "line" members were expected to follow handed down from the national committee upon high. Paper sales they were like the SWP account, but there was more resistance to it in my branch and I don't think they could've made people sell papers no matter what they do. I think a lot of people's experiences of the SP differ according to what branch your in personally, if you're lucky enough to be a in branch that has a high proportion of normal people who aren't nutty cranks then you'll come away with a better impression than in some other places.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
That was never my experience of the SWP during the late 70's, nor throughout the 1980's.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Bollocks. I work like so many other people in a hierarchical organization, and every week I speak to my counterparts in other similar hierarchical organizations. My boss similarly speaks to people elsewhere in the sector and there is a long history of collaborative enterprise among people in my line of work.Delroy Booth said:
same in mine as well, anyone would think Delroy doesn't know what he's on about.
Ok you're right, I'll rephrase that, it's common to any sort of heirachical political organisation with undemocratic tendencies. Keeping members from being able to contact each other, keeping members lists in the hands of the clique at the top, keeping e-mail lists secret so that no-one outside the executive committee can access them, controlling the flow of information to the membership via the party newspaper and so on. All part of "democratic" centralism, all part of keeping an oligarchy in power.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
He and some others apparently formed a group called IS Group and wrote a pamphlet arguing that the SWP was bureaucratic centralist rather than democratic centralist and proposed a number of constitutional changes , one of them being the election of the control commission.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Is Ian related to Sean?
Hopefully Andy isn't related to Chuck
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I left in the mid 90s but I can say that contacting and meeting up with other members was never a problem, neither was information or getting hold of it. Some on the CC were better than others , some full timers were better than others. It was the politics that I left over.
Nor mine in the mid-nineties. The district worked as a district.
However, they did at this time create separate student branches, which didn't make any sense to me. Before that students did SWSS stuff in their colleges but attended non-student branch meetings. I think that was a big mistake re.education.
I also think stopping branch meetings around the time of (before?) the invasion of Afghanistan was catastrophic for them. I actually began to be involved again at this point but couldn't believe that they'd got rid of the very thing that held the party together. I didn't last very long so my analysis may be wrong but that was my impression.
Similar threads
