Plumdaff
joy in people
The whole of Wales?
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
The whole of Wales?
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Don't bite. He's a Stalinist mental.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
So have we established yet whether or not bolshiebhoy is really Andy Newman?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And Somerset and bristol and cornwall and deveon and gloucs and dudley and brum and telford and newport and so on...
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Fair enough, still can't get used to it though after living in London and Dublin. I like that people do it, just can't get used to it.
Just consider it as a glimpse of what an ideal society might be like, one in which people have respect for each other and are happy with public transport. You're right about it being different in London though, it was one of the things I noticed after leaving there to head back 'oop North'
MellySingsDoom
Decimated by the shrapnel of his rhetoric
There's a piece on the SWP goings on in the current issue of "Datacide" magazine - it's not been put online as yet, but you can buy the printed version here: http://datacide.c8.com/magazine/
If anyone wants, I can do a short synopsis of what's written once I've read my own copy.
If anyone wants, I can do a short synopsis of what's written once I've read my own copy.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
anything that isn't on the thread already?
MellySingsDoom
Decimated by the shrapnel of his rhetoric
Not sure - as I say, I haven't had a chance to read the article as yet. If there's anything new in there, it might be worth adding here. What do you reckon?
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Including the last lot, that what, five or six hundred in total? Even with the most optometrist membership figures that's abound 20% gone, more realistically its somewhere between a third and half.
Kimber said before the December Conference that 450-500 has resigned, so I think we are looking at 700. That's just over half the total attendance at the pre-Special Conference aggregates (around 1,300). My guess is that the active membership is now something between 800 and 1,200. During the September-December pre-Conference period, the faction circulated reports of branch meetings covering a high percentage of the branches. In most cases these were small meetings, in no way reflecting the claimed membership of the branches (i.e. less than 10%).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What does active mean in your reckoning Trotter?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or not cancelling it and still possibly being counted as active.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Yes to both killer b and butchersapron's points, but demoralised drift aways tend take longer to go than people who storm out and slam the door.
I reckon that the aggregate attendance (circa 1,000) minus the door slammers (200) gives a reasonable enough approximation of "active" membership in the sense of people who might be expected to do something on a reasonably regularish basis. But that's going to continue to go down as people drift away demoralised and as difficulties recruiting make natural wastage an issue.
I reckon that the aggregate attendance (circa 1,000) minus the door slammers (200) gives a reasonable enough approximation of "active" membership in the sense of people who might be expected to do something on a reasonably regularish basis. But that's going to continue to go down as people drift away demoralised and as difficulties recruiting make natural wastage an issue.
People who are identified as SWP in activity of some sort.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So in reality 150.I'm not jocking
interesting number. Can you show your workings?
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
For your information. The following article was written by Robert Owen pre-conference and IMHO makes a lot of sense. He posted it on Facebook a couple of days ago and it has led to a great deal of discussion with interventions from Faction members (wanting some breathing space), ISNers (wanting unification right now) and Counterfirers (just being seductive). Anyway, it's worth a read:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-owen/thoughts-on-life-after-december/10152083986103329
https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-owen/thoughts-on-life-after-december/10152083986103329
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Cut and paste? It's not currently accessible
Scribbling S
Active Member
I didn't think the Counterfire crew were being very "seductive" - they don't seem to be making a play for ex-SWP members to join in any numbers (and indeed have not done so much throughout all this party catastrophe). I guess they might be thinking that all the ex SWP types are in such a mix of rage and disappointment that they would be a bit of a handful to deal with all in one go, plus many of the SWP folk seem to have held on to their SWP-dislike of Counterfire.
God as much as the details of these cases make me angry and upset, I am happy I was alive and here to witness the end of the SW fucking P.
after all the shit they put me through as a student it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of absolute cunts. We started a group in Salford, met at the crescent, managed to get 40-50 people turn up regularly to a cross-left meeting that lasted 12 months (12 meetings in total) and every trot and anarcho group you can think of was there. It was trotspotters delight. It was dead relaxed, didn't really mix much with the student politics (which was dire at Salford) and actually managed to get people into the community and doing useful stuff not NUS shit. The SWP were noticeable from the outset, in and amongst all the little groups, for being the hardest to work with. They turned up, and immediately tried making us affiliate to UAF (which coz we were all young and didn't have much experience of this bureacracy stuff was quite threatening really. We didn't have a bank account to start with, how are we supposed to pay affiliations?) when we said no, we want to be more informal they then basically tried ruining it. Once they realised they couldn't take it over, and turn the whole thing into being a UAF donkey-work society, they then turned up in numbers to meetings being vexatious and dominating meetings using points of order and shouting over people etc. Really astonishing. Then once they realised they couldn't do that, they called their own rival meeting in a nearby pub for the exact same day of the month as we had ours. Didn't work though, apart from their own handful of members they'd conned at freshers stalls, no-one fucking bothered. These were the first "far-left" socialists I ever encountered and it nearly put me off politics for life. It did for some who came. Their behaviour was so fucking outrageous that I basically came to the swift conclusion "trots are fucking mental" and that was a big part of why at the end of it all I ended up joining Labour - they might be disgusting in so many ways but at least they weren't like that. Took me years to realise that was a dead end, by which time I'd fucking had enough of left politics pretty much.
So yeah fuck them, fuck them a million times over for not just this recent disgusting escapade with Martin Smith but for the decades and decades worth of bullshit they've put people though no different to what I went through. The damange they've done is immense. The ex-members who left get the right to say "at least I'm not a rape apologist" but to be honest that's all they get to say, because they were complicit in the rest of the damage that shitty little group has done and very few of them are even beginning to honestly assess where they went wrong and what they did.
after all the shit they put me through as a student it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of absolute cunts. We started a group in Salford, met at the crescent, managed to get 40-50 people turn up regularly to a cross-left meeting that lasted 12 months (12 meetings in total) and every trot and anarcho group you can think of was there. It was trotspotters delight. It was dead relaxed, didn't really mix much with the student politics (which was dire at Salford) and actually managed to get people into the community and doing useful stuff not NUS shit. The SWP were noticeable from the outset, in and amongst all the little groups, for being the hardest to work with. They turned up, and immediately tried making us affiliate to UAF (which coz we were all young and didn't have much experience of this bureacracy stuff was quite threatening really. We didn't have a bank account to start with, how are we supposed to pay affiliations?) when we said no, we want to be more informal they then basically tried ruining it. Once they realised they couldn't take it over, and turn the whole thing into being a UAF donkey-work society, they then turned up in numbers to meetings being vexatious and dominating meetings using points of order and shouting over people etc. Really astonishing. Then once they realised they couldn't do that, they called their own rival meeting in a nearby pub for the exact same day of the month as we had ours. Didn't work though, apart from their own handful of members they'd conned at freshers stalls, no-one fucking bothered. These were the first "far-left" socialists I ever encountered and it nearly put me off politics for life. It did for some who came. Their behaviour was so fucking outrageous that I basically came to the swift conclusion "trots are fucking mental" and that was a big part of why at the end of it all I ended up joining Labour - they might be disgusting in so many ways but at least they weren't like that. Took me years to realise that was a dead end, by which time I'd fucking had enough of left politics pretty much.
So yeah fuck them, fuck them a million times over for not just this recent disgusting escapade with Martin Smith but for the decades and decades worth of bullshit they've put people though no different to what I went through. The damange they've done is immense. The ex-members who left get the right to say "at least I'm not a rape apologist" but to be honest that's all they get to say, because they were complicit in the rest of the damage that shitty little group has done and very few of them are even beginning to honestly assess where they went wrong and what they did.
Scribbling S
Active Member
- interested if you could you say when that was ? ta
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Too long to paste in one go. So here it is in several parts:
I wrote this just before conference mainly to think through what was going on in my own head. Not 100% sure about all of it but I think the general thrust is still more or less what I think. Still trying to write something about the tasks of revolutionaries today.
Increasing numbers on all sides of the crisis in the SWP are aware that the situation has tipped unavoidably in one direction. The behaviour of the CC and their majority in the party has, since January, moved to disenfranchise those that have not “been loyal enough” to the central committee. This document attempts to offer some suggestions for those of us likely to be left behind by the SWP after conference.
Evolution of crisis
Back in May I wrote a piece when I was starting to come to terms with our failure to salvage the situation. I argued that the crisis was being driven by the fact that:
“Those that led the charge (on and off the CC) were in effect a faction lead to defend Comrade Delta but also a particular model of the party – one heavily shaped by the experience of the 1980s. Those in IDOOP were characterised as being soft on the movements by comrades with a model of the Party developed to survive the downturn. This resonated with a layer of comrades caderised in the 80s who wished to see the party survive but had reduced their day to day relationship with it. Many also had roles in the public sector unions that have been at the centre of our recent perspectives. This layer was able to pull behind it others with a substitutionist notion of party building and more who simply wished the crisis would blow over.
At the centre of this faction were comrades who had been mobilised to defeat the left platform a few years previously. That had been a faction fight that united them with younger elements in the party. However, they now moved to pressure a weak leadership into moving decisively against a section of the party shaped by the recent crisis of capitalism. This faction now reinforces the most sectarian elements of the leadership and is adjusting the party’s politics to justify a rapid sectarian turn. Their permanent war footing has created a self-fulfilling prophesy that those in IDOOP are on a route out of the party. Elements of the CC that recognised this were either not confident, or unable, to challenge the dynamic or those on the CC who encouraged it.”
This is an analysis which proved depressingly true. As did the prediction of who would depart the SWP first. We have been all but stripped of our younger and most energetic members. Comrades who left were those for whom the SWP was more of a tool in the struggle and less an institution where the weight of the past weighed heavy. Whether we could have done things differently is now pointless speculation. We all have to fight to win at conference while thinking about how we hold our politics together through difficult times.
What will be left of the SWP if we lose?
The SWP will remain a force with many hundreds of committed activists for years to come. It will continue to contain important individuals, embody many positive ideas and be a principled anti-racist and anti-fascist grouping. However it will be a force robbed of its revolutionary potential. The model of “command Leninism” that Alex Callinicos and the cc are institutionalising represents a retreat from engaging with a wider anti-systemic mood. Those activists beyond our ranks are the people who could renew the SWP, but they will not be won simply because we are the best trade unionists or activists.
Our tradition always understood the centrality of politics extended beyond trade unionism and party led campaigns. Our slogan fight on every front showed a willingness to engage openly in every spark of resistance. The combination of organisational pragmatism and theoretical dogmatism that took its place is rapidly turning the SWP into a sect. This reality can be seen in numerous IB pieces including “towards a revolutionary party” and the CC’s response to the faction in IB3. This is not to redefine the term sect but to use it in its truest sense. The SWP’s practice and culture has become self-referential and self-justifying. The CC mixes inoffensive broad brush analysis with a wild over estimation of our initiatives without any critical reflection or genuine link. As an organisation we have become passive propagandists on the one hand and dogmatists on the other. The response of the party to every new development has been to try and fit it into a pre-existing analysis.
There were always “many potential seeds” in the SWP. However, the crisis has nurtured some of the very worst and drawn them in to buttress a weak leadership. If the CC / party grandee alliance wins at conference it will mean smoothing over, denying or embedding some of the worst aspects of the past year. If this happens the SWP will become an organisation with no space for those unable or unwilling to be “loyal beyond doubt”. What will remain is an aging and discredited organisation.
The question for us must be how we save the best of our collective experience and ideas. The possibility of a new project should not be judged against the SWP past but the current SWP and its direction of travel.
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Part Two Rob Owen:
Humble origins and future dreams
The beginnings of any new project will have to be tentative and humble. We have emerged from a sustained political crisis and have few if any “great successes” under our belts. While it would be madness to declare ourselves the nucleus of a mass party we have some important things to offer:
We come from a political tradition rooted in the idea of socialism from below and critical revolutionary Marxism. As such we have a strong basis to start evaluating perspectives for revolutionaries today.
We contain or relate to a large section of the activists won to revolutionary Marxism since 2001. This includes most of the younger activists who have built the SWP over the past few years.
We are seen as principled and are respected by many on the wider left and contain some of the best known figures in the current SWP.
We have a common experience and trust stretching back many years. Whatever the difficulties of the faction fight we have retained our shared principles and avoided a (complete) breakdown of trust.
The key question is how many SWP members (within and outside the faction) can we keep active as revolutionaries. This will involve addressing the political debates that opened up this year and establishing new routines of activity. A new grouping would have to provide a space for revolutionary ideas to be discussed but also be a network of activists trying to apply them in practice. For a group to survive it must:
Be an open and inclusive place to discuss politics and activity
Develop a sense of what ideas (socialism from below, internationalist, tribune of the oppressed) unite it and form the limits of membership.
Support activity that is seen as useful.
Develop a voice to the outside world – through a publication (be it magazine or journal) and a properly resourced website.
Some proposals
If we are likely to be driven out the SWP at conference then we must organise a meeting in the New Year to suggest next steps. This will have to acknowledge that there would be some areas where people have groups but also many fairly isolated individuals around the country. We need some means of holding both together. No one can proscribe any conclusions when most of us still hope for some last minute victory. It will be up to us all to raise and discuss ideas but we should start thinking now. Some of my own suggestions would include:
Asking local groups to set up meetings on the tasks of revolutionaries today in every location we can. Encouraging as many people to circulate ideas and speak at meetings both before and after. Following them up with other discussions related to the wider debates.
Asking groups to pick one campaign and workplace they are going to attempt to work around. It is important we have some activity that is focused, collective and productive. We are revolutionaries not just to wait for the glorious day but to get stuck into changing the world.
To encourage groups to write up and reflect on their activity. The organisation should become a forum for circulating experiences that could be of use elsewhere.
To start producing a regular magazine that could include some of these reports but mainly analysis of events, more theoretical pieces and some reviews.
To launch a proper website to access a wider audience.
Starting to organise a one day/weekend mini-Marxism event in early March. This would to open up the discussions we have been happening and show others in the SWP diaspora that we are serious about developing the non-sectarian tradition of the SWP. Why should we not debate Michael Rosen or host him on a platform? Why not debate Owen Jones on reform or revolution? It would however have to be mainly based around major workshops on the key areas of discussion.
We would have course have to elect some temporary committee with comrades delegated to edit what was agreed and coordinate the organisation. This must be an interim steering committee. Organisational questions must be secondary as we aim to develop a structure and leadership that fits the experience of working together outside the SWP. Similarly we can’t allow ourselves to become defined by hostility to the organisation that has left us behind. Bitterness is no basis to build.
How we carry ourselves
We will be what we are: a group of revolutionary socialists with a common experience seeing what we have to offer. I believe something positive would come of it, I have not spent 13 years in the SWP to leave nothing principled behind. The only guarantee we have is that if we do not try we will definitely fail.
Our aim is to increase the number of active revolutionaries in the here and now and we will seek practical unity with others (including revolutionaries) where ever we can. However I do not believe a rush to mergers and regroupment is a helpful early step. Let us put the horse in front of the cart and attempt to work together with ourselves and others to see what works.
I think the same applies to many comrades in the ISN – neither of us has the authority to subsume the other. We have ploughed different troughs for a number of months, developed different experiences and learnt different lessons. That can only be brought back together through patience, goodwill and joint political activity. We do not need an explosion of new groups but neither will we solve the problem by amalgamating the existing ones. Struggle can unite us but organisational fixes rarely work.
In conclusion
Whatever flaws the SWP had developed it is a tragedy what has occurred this year. It has been 12 months where different possibilities have been shut down by the CC leaving them with an increasingly sectarian and ageing organisation. This is a tragedy not because the international struggle is on the brink of revolution but because the revolutionary left is in urgent need of a rigorous assessment of possibilities and perspectives. We could have been a significant space for discussion but the CC has set its face against it. The crisis over the DC case has over shadowed any other debate and hidden a rapid sectarian drift. As Tony Cliff once said a fish rots from the head and if the rot is not removed this conference then the patient will not be saved.
Rob Owen
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Yes, perhaps "seductive" isn't the appropriate word. How about "sweet and reasonable"?
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
edited
Last edited:
Similar threads
