SWP expulsions and squabbles

[butchersapron]

Victory, for you, is just other groups not being the SWP. You've already won.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

"Impressive women are few and far between"
Presumably an impressive woman is one that doesn't complain about being raped

Why stop at just leaving out some of my words when you quote me. If you reorganise the words from all my posts on this thread you can probably reconstruct the first chapter of Mein Kampf as well.

 

[frogwoman]

the claims that concern about age differences was "bourgeois"

WTF? 'Lumpen' surely

 

[frogwoman]

I thought concern over paedos and exploitation of vulnerable women was confined to the pastry-faced x-factor and EastEnders watching masses not fine upstanding bastions of proletarianism like Alex Callinicos

 

[barney_pig]

Why stop at just leaving out some of my words when you quote me. If you reorganise the words from all my posts on this thread you can probably reconstruct the first chapter of Mein Kampf as well.

I was not aware that hitler justified rape in mein kampf

 

[treelover]

People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.

 

[butchersapron]

People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.

How you do intend to facilitate this series of self-criticisms?

 

[Oisin123]

... we all actually only 'know' what we've been told in private and yes what I've been told most recently is appalling.

Erm. I don't know what you have been told in private. I have no insider information. My position was based on the evidence of dishonesty by the CC and their supporters, as per the reminders by Karmickameleon and Scribbling above. As yours should have been.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.

I'd like to see you apologise for wasting our time with your many ludicrous and overwrought posts like this

 

[Scribbling S]

WTF? 'Lumpen' surely

One of the "Disputes Committee", describing how they had "investigated" the allegation of rape at SWP conference said. among other things " We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationship, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those." The big clue in there is "age differences". In fact , there couldn't be anything more "bourgeois" than a middle aged man in a position of authority pestering or assaulting a young - teenage- woman - just look at the LibDems . This was a minor one of the many points where anyone who wasn't deceiving themselves could see, without any "inside information".

 

[newbie]

We went through this upthread, and I think their position is correct (despite the 'as revolutionaries' bit being obviously bonkers). It's just about the only thing they got right.

It's dead easy to patronise young people, but in reality a person over the age of 18 is an adult, not only in the eyes of the law but most importantly, in their own eyes. They're past the point at which other people can legitimately insist "we know best", they're entitled to do the same as any other adult, to have the same freedoms and choices (and the same protections) and that includes being able to form a relationship with "a middle aged man in a position of authority" if that's what they want to do. Without interference by anyone else.

So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make. That's her business, she's an adult.

 

[butchersapron]

We went through this upthread, and I think their position is correct (despite the 'as revolutionaries' bit being obviously bonkers). It's just about the only thing they got right.

It's dead easy to patronise young people, but in reality a person over the age of 18 is an adult, not only in the eyes of the law but most importantly, in their own eyes. They're past the point at which other people can legitimately insist "we know best", they're entitled to do the same as any other adult, to have the same freedoms and choices (and the same protections) and that includes being able to form a relationship with "a middle aged man in a position of authority" if that's what they want to do. Without interference by anyone else.

So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make. That's her business, she's an adult.

Which company did you write this for?

 

[butchersapron]

We went through this upthread, and I think their position is correct (despite the 'as revolutionaries' bit being obviously bonkers). It's just about the only thing they got right.

It's dead easy to patronise young people, but in reality a person over the age of 18 is an adult, not only in the eyes of the law but most importantly, in their own eyes. They're past the point at which other people can legitimately insist "we know best", they're entitled to do the same as any other adult, to have the same freedoms and choices (and the same protections) and that includes being able to form a relationship with "a middle aged man in a position of authority" if that's what they want to do. Without interference by anyone else.

So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make. That's her business, she's an adult.

You, of course, in your rush to condemn forget that we're talking 17. All those words.

 

[newbie]

am I misremebering, I thought she was 18?

 

[newbie]

Which company did you write this for?

don't be daft, no-one would ever choose me to write for them.

 

[butchersapron]

am I misremebering, I thought she was 18?

17

 

[newbie]

ok I'll take your word for it.

Point stands though, she has the right to choose her relationship.

 

[butchersapron]

You silly silly sod. Fuck off.

 

[belboid]

ok I'll take your word for it.

Point stands though, she has the right to choose her relationship.

as long as she has a 'free choice' - which is where question of Smith's position of authority over her becomes possibly relevant, and so should be considered to see whether it does have any bearing upon the rest of the case. It shouldnt be completely dismissed, out of hand

 

[newbie]

indeed but in the statement quoted the DC did not explicitly exclude position of authority from their remit.

Whether they gave the question much actual consideration before reaching their dodgy conclusion is a different matter.

 

[butchersapron]

indeed but in the statement quoted the DC did not explicitly exclude position of authority from their remit.

Whether they gave the question much actual consideration before reaching their dodgy conclusion is a different matter.

Just fuck off.

 

[butchersapron]

newbie on a thread with more than 100 posts, Just die. Oh i'm so naive.

 

[Mustn't grumble]

. . . it wouldn't surprise me if Kimber has resigned as Nat Sec. . . . the prospect of working with the IDOOM headbangers on the CC can't be very motivating.

Good to see the 13 Jan Party Notes (thanx, Trotter) promoting the stiffening of the members' Marxist backbone:
"We are holding a 'Rough Guide to Marxism' school for SWP new members and student son Saturday 1 March in London. This is a real opportunity for comrades to root themselves in Marxism and to power up their theoretical training! Themes and meetings will include: Marxism and Oppression, The Marxist method, Marxist economics and the crisis today, Strategy and tactics, Party and class, The United Front and What is class?"

And that can all be reinforced at Marxism, when a particular oppression in the news can be examined, that of girls & women. In fact, all cdes. have been asked to send in their Marxism ideas to the capable cde. responsible for this year's event:
"The Marxism 2014 planning meeting will take place on Sat 1 Feb, from 3 – 5pm
We would like to encourage as many comrades as possible to attend this planning meeting. It plays a crucial role in helping shape the event. We want comrades to bring ideas for the Marxism event as well as feedback from last year. This both strengthens the event itself while at the same time making it as relevant as possible to all those we hope to bring to the event in July.
If you would like more information or cannot attend and would like to input some ideas please contact Amy in the Marxism Office on amyl@swp.org.uk"

Maybe the teachers would like THE class to send in their suggestions to improve the event, Th-M, 10-14 July. Amy Dried-Skin could do with more fan mail. And bags of the stuff may be carted into Delta Towers, Fauxhall, if she's promoted to Chief Email-Sender.

Moving on - or not, in his case - Jim Wolfreys is sitting pretty at toppish table, speaking at a 8 Feb day 'skool' on neoliberalism & THE class.

Mr Rosen (& Salma Yaqoob) speaks at Bookmarks on the hoary but worthy topic recounted by Edelman, the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

And the ideological offensive continues amongst the yuhf:
"SWP student members met up yesterday to discuss the strategy for the coming term. It was agreed to continue with weekly SWSS meetings as the ideological backbone of SWSS."
Also a statement of the bleeding obvious: "There are a number of districts where there is no SWSS group but comrades are planning meetings. Every district needs to make a plan that involves a strategy for building at a Uni or college." So more dodgy geezers on campus - this time as Party policy. Lock-up your kids.
And after last year's purge by Jo, what she called "revenge" (Ray's 'dear Charlie' letter), it's business as usual but with a greatly reduced sales force: "We want to ensure a good SWSS intervention at NUS conference. That means we need as many comrades as possible to stand for election."
(Jo, 4 mths. before she stormed into the Student Office)
(Jo, a mth. or so later, attending to her new charges, refreshed from her purge, calm, not hectoring, not least coz a line had been drawn under everything)
http://swp.org.uk/party-notes

Which might be one reason why the heavy hitters like Stack and Birchall have thrown the towel in completely rather than commit themselves to building a new org.

Ian B has changed tack a lil since his resignation letter, from "I have no desire to engage in further public criticism of the SWP, and, having stated the reasons for my resignation, I hope and intend to refrain from further polemics" (15 Dec, grimanddim) thru "Of course there are reasons for the SWP’s current crisis. I think these probably lie in organisational practices which we adopted and accepted over the years, and about which we were too complacent. When my present anger had dissipated I may try and write more about this" (24 Dec, hatfulofhistory) to "I have not 'retired' and am certainly not contemplating suicide (with or without a bomb). I remain a Marxist, I remain committed to the struggle for socialism. I just don’t happen to belong to an organisation at present" (Th, 16 Jan, News of the Workers). So from no polemic thru explanation to we'll see.

People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.

They made it plain at the 3° Party Conference: they don't do apologies.

 

[benedict]

I know I'll regret asking but here goes nothing. So I'd imagine the only way to get that integrity is to stop supporting the swp and it's brand of politics yes? And to instead support one of the groups formed by the leavers assuming one is still vaguely an IS person? Can we at least have a chance to see what their politics are going to be first or do we have to base everything on a group's attitude to the delta question? Fair enough if you think we should base it on that, big test of a party's politics on oppression, I get that completely. But are we even allowed to wonder about all the other issues that these groups might disagree on, to ask what their ideas are, before we decide that only one course of action is morally/politically acceptable?

Sure you can. But that's not what you were doing. You came and pronounced this thread past its sell-by on the basis of posters' hostility to the SWP. This after the outrageous comments by yourself (since rescinded) up thread. This to me betrays a lack of integrity. Plus you've got a victim complex about being an SWP fanboy. And didn't you rejoin the SWP after this whole sordid mess became public anyway?

When you're talking seriously about politics of groups and the machinations internally you add a lot to the mix so why not focus on that.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Sure you can. But that's not what you were doing. You came and pronounced this thread past its sell-by on the basis of posters' hostility to the SWP. This after the outrageous comments by yourself (since rescinded) up thread. This to me betrays a lack of integrity. Plus you've got a victim complex about being an SWP fanboy. And didn't you rejoin the SWP after this whole sordid mess became public anyway?

When you're talking seriously about politics of groups and the machinations internally you add a lot to the mix so why not focus on that.

Fair enough. Mind you I reserve the right to the occasional snarky one liner designed to annoy given that most of the replies on here (yours and a few others excepted) are usually just that.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Victory, for you, is just other groups not being the SWP. You've already won.

Speaking of snarky one liners devoid of content. Truth is most of the groups in the IS tendency only exist because over a period of years or decades in some cases there was patient discussion and debate between the IS leadership and groups that were semi maoist or whatever. It's not about being pure, it's aout the direction groups are travelling.

If the likes of stack and birchall can help stop the rs21 lot morphing into the isn or an iso(gb) then that would be a good thing imho.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

And the ideological offensive continues amongst the yuhf:
"SWP student members met up yesterday to discuss the strategy for the coming term. It was agreed to continue with weekly SWSS meetings as the ideological backbone of SWSS."
Also a statement of the bleeding obvious: "There are a number of districts where there is no SWSS group but comrades are planning meetings. Every district needs to make a plan that involves a strategy for building at a Uni or college." So more dodgy geezers on campus - this time as Party policy. Lock-up your kids.

Thanks for clarifying Birchall's stance on future activity elsewhere in your post. But I have to ask, I've no idea who you are or what your relationship with the swp is but are you serious about those last two sentences?

 

[Mustn't grumble]

Thanks for clarifying Birchall's stance on future activity elsewhere in your post. But I have to ask, I've no idea who you are or what your relationship with the swp is but are you serious about those last two sentences?

given the whole post, what do you think?

 

[Scribbling S]

It's just about the only thing they got right.....So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make. That's her business, she's an adult.

err, the Disputes Committee were never (or should never have been) considering "Her" choices, because the complaint wasn't against "Her" it was against "Him" - Of course people form relationships across ages, and that's all fine and legal. However, when it comes to his choices (1) In considering wether a leading member of the party, a late 40's bloke, is acting responsibly or is in danger of putting the party into "disrepute", then wondering wether he should have been pursuing what he believed to be a "relationship" with a new teenage member is of course very relevant and (2) In considering whether more serious charges had any substance, the age difference might also be a clue. It might make you wonder if something a bit DLT-ish is going on.This is the kind of approach any SWP union member would have taken if they had to deal with a complaint by a young employee against a middle aged middle manager at work. They wouldn't have started off yammering about "bourgeois morality".

 

[newbie]

Of course they had to consider her choices, because all sexual relationships hinge around consent.

(1) is the point about position of authority which they did not explicitly rule out of their remit, nor should they have done. If they'd actually considered it properly this thread would have ended long ago.
(2) I haven't followed the DLT stuff but that does not appear to have involved relationships to which both parties initially consented.