belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you clearly don't understand the dialectic
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Whats happened to the WSM?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
They lost a number of key members a few years ago and have dwindled in size since. Still in existence and now influenced by intersectionalism, but not very visible.
It has to be said that since the announcement to run against Murphy in the Euros it has become clear the SWP are on mission to wreck the SP's electoral success in Ireland on some foolish errand to supplant them.
It's disingenuous to claim that it doesn't matter since he has no hope of winning this time, the point of the by-election is to help build or reinforce a credible profile for the general election. A split vote in the general even in a 5 seat constituency (and I know how STV works thanks) will possibly prevent a genuine socialist getting in.
It's disingenuous to claim that it doesn't matter since he has no hope of winning this time, the point of the by-election is to help build or reinforce a credible profile for the general election. A split vote in the general even in a 5 seat constituency (and I know how STV works thanks) will possibly prevent a genuine socialist getting in.
The Darlington branch are still doing well
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
People are sounding off confidently about Irish electoral politics here without necessarily knowing what they are talking about.
The SWP/PBPA candidacy in Dublin South West is not particularly important. They are unlikely to get a significant vote. In so far as they have any impact it will be to split the left of Sinn Fein vote (the Socialist Party came second in this constituency in the recent European elections and the Anti-Austerity Alliance got three local councillors elected there), however Sinn Fein are going to romp home regardless. The greater issue is that it indicates that the SWP/PBPA will be standing there in the general election, when the constituency actually will be a target for the AAA.
Now, anyone is entitled run in an election anywhere they like. But that doesn't mean that exercising that right is reasonable, a good idea or likely to make you very popular. In general, there is a strong hostility on the left here to "vote splitting" operations - and that hostility combined with a basic level of responsible behaviour has made electoral clashes quite rare. Strong left candidates have almost always been given a free run, at least in the years from 1997 - when the SWP first moved into electoral politics and stood widely against others - until the recent Euro and local elections. This has been the case regardless of whether there have been formal alliances or pacts or deals in place.
What has changed in the last year or so is that the SWP has fully committed to a strategy of putting building the PBPA above any commitment to the health of the wider left. So they stood in the Europeans, knowing that they couldn't win and could only make things harder for a Socialist Party incumbent. And also stood no hope candidates in target wards for just about every other left group in the locals. In the forthcoming general election they are making it clear that they will again be standing widely against left wing incumbents and left wing candidates who might be in the running - the main point of standing against Murphy in the Euros was to set up their candidate to take out Joan Collins of the United Left in the general election, now they are letting us know that they will be running against Murphy again too.
They are entitled to behave like this. Nobody is suggesting that they should be forbidden from contesting elections. The rest of us however are entitled to regard their behaviour as irresponsible and destructive.
The Workers Party in its heyday had a similar attitude, but at least they generally had the honesty to say that the rest of the left were a shower of Trots, Provos, Provo-Trots, Social Democrats and other bastards and that their only concern was to build their own party. Nobody likes that, but you can sort of respect the honesty. The SWP/PBPA are not so honest. Instead they issue calls for unity while they sharpen the knife. On the same day they announced that they were standing against the Socialist Party in the European elections they attended a protest and handed out a leaflet calling for the left to work together and put old enmities behind us. In the most recent issue of their paper they have a weaselly article semi-justifying the decision to stand in that election and arguing that "instead of raking over the past, it is time to move on and discuss the possibility of united initiatives." Just before they try to stick the knife again. This is the having your cake and eating it too school of politics.
The SWP/PBPA candidacy in Dublin South West is not particularly important. They are unlikely to get a significant vote. In so far as they have any impact it will be to split the left of Sinn Fein vote (the Socialist Party came second in this constituency in the recent European elections and the Anti-Austerity Alliance got three local councillors elected there), however Sinn Fein are going to romp home regardless. The greater issue is that it indicates that the SWP/PBPA will be standing there in the general election, when the constituency actually will be a target for the AAA.
Now, anyone is entitled run in an election anywhere they like. But that doesn't mean that exercising that right is reasonable, a good idea or likely to make you very popular. In general, there is a strong hostility on the left here to "vote splitting" operations - and that hostility combined with a basic level of responsible behaviour has made electoral clashes quite rare. Strong left candidates have almost always been given a free run, at least in the years from 1997 - when the SWP first moved into electoral politics and stood widely against others - until the recent Euro and local elections. This has been the case regardless of whether there have been formal alliances or pacts or deals in place.
What has changed in the last year or so is that the SWP has fully committed to a strategy of putting building the PBPA above any commitment to the health of the wider left. So they stood in the Europeans, knowing that they couldn't win and could only make things harder for a Socialist Party incumbent. And also stood no hope candidates in target wards for just about every other left group in the locals. In the forthcoming general election they are making it clear that they will again be standing widely against left wing incumbents and left wing candidates who might be in the running - the main point of standing against Murphy in the Euros was to set up their candidate to take out Joan Collins of the United Left in the general election, now they are letting us know that they will be running against Murphy again too.
They are entitled to behave like this. Nobody is suggesting that they should be forbidden from contesting elections. The rest of us however are entitled to regard their behaviour as irresponsible and destructive.
The Workers Party in its heyday had a similar attitude, but at least they generally had the honesty to say that the rest of the left were a shower of Trots, Provos, Provo-Trots, Social Democrats and other bastards and that their only concern was to build their own party. Nobody likes that, but you can sort of respect the honesty. The SWP/PBPA are not so honest. Instead they issue calls for unity while they sharpen the knife. On the same day they announced that they were standing against the Socialist Party in the European elections they attended a protest and handed out a leaflet calling for the left to work together and put old enmities behind us. In the most recent issue of their paper they have a weaselly article semi-justifying the decision to stand in that election and arguing that "instead of raking over the past, it is time to move on and discuss the possibility of united initiatives." Just before they try to stick the knife again. This is the having your cake and eating it too school of politics.
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
Nigel, your points would carry a great deal more weight if the SP hadn't walked out of the United Left Alliance. Personally, I don't get worked up about electoral politics. 'One mass strike is worth ten general elections' and all that. But for those interested in getting lots of left TDs elected, the breakthrough at the last general election (2011) for the 5 TDs was real progress. If the ULA had carried on, these clashes wouldn't be happening and I think the ULA would be a powerful electoral force.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
The whole idea of the ULA was misconceived. What was needed was a less ambitious pledge to vote and campaign against austerity. That would have provided some measure of coordinated activity without trying to force a shotgun marriage between sects that were never, ever going to agree (wrote the lifelong armchair socialist).
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
Really? How?
In what world does it make sense to consistently run candidates in the target areas of other left groups? The only parallel I can think of on the European left is the KKE.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Didn't the anarchists do this in the soviet and factory elections ?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
This is a disingenuous line of argument. The ULA was entirely non-functional by the time the SP left - the SWP had already left in all but name, relaunching People Before Profit as a direct rival to the ULA and putting its resources into PBPA instead, the WUAG had already left and Daly and Collins were openly more interested in working with Flanagan and Wallace. Meanwhile pretty much nobody else had joined the ULA and most of its branches had a real existence only as long as the Socialist Party kept propping them up.
Oisin said:
In which case you must find it very strange to be a member of the Irish SWP, an organisation which carries out most of its activity under its electoral name People Before Profit, with a central perspective of building PBP into a significant electoral force! It's like an officer of a chess club saying he doesn't care that much about board games. Over the last couple of years, the Irish SWP have been arguably the most electorally focused socialist grouping in the anglophone world.
Oisin123 said:
The ULA was almost irrelevant to the electoral fortunes of those TDs - all were elected by a mile except Boyd Barrett and it was only narrow for him against Bacik because SWP/PBPA made a serious mistake in going too soft on Labour locally. The ULA then failed to take off in any meaningful sense, with few people getting involved. The SWP got frustrated and switched horses back to the PBPA. By the time the SP left, it was a shell and a waste of our limited resources.
"These clashes" - and let's be clear by this we are talking not about generalised "clashes" but about one left group, yours, standing no hoper candidates irresponsibly but consistently in the target seats of every other group - are happening for one reason only. And that reason is that the SWP have made a decision to seize every opportunity to build PBP and raise its profile, no matter what damage that does to the wider left. It is, in other words, purest sectarianism. Nobody else is behaving similarly.
As I said above, the Workers Party used to behave like this. But at least they had the basic honesty not to pour out flagrantly, shamelessly, dishonest appeals for "unity" at the same time. Your lot really do seem to believe that everyone else has no memory. That you can fuck the rest of us over, then argue that we should all just get along, then fuck the rest of us over again, then go back to piously calling for unity, without anyone noticing or resenting it.
I note, by the way, that there's no actual defence of the SWP/PBP's actions in your response.
Last edited:
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
What we need is a Peshmerga of the left
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Why stop at Peshmerga? What about a Godzilla of the left? Or is Godzilla already left-wing anyway?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Well, we did used to have left-nationalists who were occasionally prone to outbreaks of fratricidal internecine violence.
Irps meeting in departure lounges so their comrades couldn't sneak guns into meetings
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Pretty sure I saw a big budget action movie about that once
Think it was called O'Toole Recall.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I see that Kieran Allen's hunchbacked assistant James O'Toole was out on Facebook today peddling the same disingenuous line Oisin123 came out with above, so it seems to be the excuse they are making internally. This clown is the new National Secretary of the SWP, remember.
James O'tooleYes it was unfortunate that the SP left the ULA as it would have been better for the radical left to all come under the same umbrella. But as things stand at the moment we need to prove that a vibrant radical left can be built by building People Before Profit as a network and space where any worker who wants to fight can develop - while at the same time reaching out to the rest of the radical left.
"Reaching out to the rest of the radical left" one sectarian stunt at a time. Still, you can always get a quick handle on the Irish SWP's current obsessions and buzz phrases by listening to a few sentences of inanities from him.
James O'tooleYes it was unfortunate that the SP left the ULA as it would have been better for the radical left to all come under the same umbrella. But as things stand at the moment we need to prove that a vibrant radical left can be built by building People Before Profit as a network and space where any worker who wants to fight can develop - while at the same time reaching out to the rest of the radical left.
"Reaching out to the rest of the radical left" one sectarian stunt at a time. Still, you can always get a quick handle on the Irish SWP's current obsessions and buzz phrases by listening to a few sentences of inanities from him.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Nigel what colour are James O'Toole's eyes?
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
I haven't seen this point 'internally' in Party Notes or heard it in a branch meeting. It's simply an obvious one that springs to mind when the SP ask for unity.
But we can look forward, not back, if you prefer. Why not propose an agreement for the next election
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Clearly you haven't been reading Socialist Worker, not that I blame you. That's the disingenuous line pushed in the most recent paper. Strangely enough it also contains the suggestion that we shouldn't "rake over the past", so despite your apparent memory issues, you are still reliably hitting the right talking points.
The "raking over the past"' "look forward, not back" pieties are, of course, entirely self serving. The SWP has no memory of its own actions and it would very much prefer that nobody else did either.
Last edited:
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
It occured to me to ask what you thought of a future electoral pact because that question provides a test your narrative of events. If you offer the SWP a sincere electoral pact, with a fair division of constituencies, and we turn it down and stand as we please then you're right. If you say 'no', then that suggests it is you who is constructing a distorted view of the past to suit a current sectarian policy.
Of course Godzilla is left wing. Not the first American one though, splitting dinosaur fake-ass lizard.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
.
Last edited:
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
I did read your post before you edited it. Why did you remove it?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I was tired when I wrote it and it seemed overly aggressive in tone when I reread it. I was planning to make much the same points without some of the polemical jabs, but I got distracted went and made dinner instead.
I didn't actually mention it in the removed post, but it's worth saying that I don't locate the source of the SWP/PBPA's recent behaviour in some kind of sectarian original sin. It flows from the PBPA gamble. I actually think that the SWP were sincere enough about the ULA in its early days. Even when they set up "Enough!", which trespassed rather too much on the ULA's supposed role, they were still putting resources into the ULA.
It's the effective relaunch of PBPA and the massive shift of resources into it which indicated the change in direction. And that rather amusing leaked circular slagging off everyone else gave an accidental insight into the reasons - the SWP leadership was getting extremely frustrated at the inevitable overheads of working with others on an equal basis, particularly the tiresome task of actually winning support for their views and proposals. The frustration also stemmed from the failure of the ULA to grow on the ground. Without the fetters allegedly imposed by the "conservatism" of Collins or the WUAG and the irritating encumbrance of the Socialist Party, the SWP would use PBPA to demonstrate the superiority of their dynamic leadership and show the huge gains that a more, ahem, vibrant left could make. This is of course in the context of a perspective which has held for more than ten (twelve? fifteen?) years that big advances for the left are there to be made.*
Everything else flows from doubling down on that over and over. It has led internally to a greater and greater emphasis on PBPA work (and inevitably PBPA politics). And from an external point of view it led to what seems like destructive behaviour because building the PBPA came first. Lots of people on the left have an extremely jaundiced view of the SWP and see it as almost unchanging. I actually think the most interesting thing about PBPA is exactly how much it has changed the SWP.
As I said in the removed post, there are two different strands to the SWP/PBPA's "belligerence" when it comes to standing candidates in other group's target seats. 1) moves which are about replacing Collins with Brid Smith. This ultimately included the European election stunt, where hindering the Socialist Party was just a bonus. 2) gratuitously standing no hopers against incumbents or serious contenders. The first is a core interest that they have invested a great deal in. The second, I think, is mostly an artefact of a hope/expectation that the local elections would leave them in a dominant electoral position on the left, with PBPA established as the only or at least the main game in town. As that hasn't worked out, I don't think the SWP/PBPA gains much from antagonising everyone else.
As such, there may well be scope for agreements of the sort which centre around the SWP/PBPA knocking it off with the no hoper vandalism. I don't see how there can be any substantive "unity" involving both Collins and the SWP however. The Socialist Party, it should be noted, has nothing invested in standing candidates in other people's targets and I believe the last time it did anything even slightly comparable was more than 20 years ago.
You may, of course, have a different perspective on all of this, which I would of course be interested to hear.
*eventually this perspective will be right on the stopped clock principle.
Last edited:
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
The article about the disintegration of the SWP which was published in the October 2013 issue of Datacide magazine is now online:
http://datacide.c8.com/crisis-in-the-swp/
http://datacide.c8.com/crisis-in-the-swp/
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
So I left the swp in late 2009...after being a member since I joined as a 18 yr old in 1986
I wrote at the time explaining my decision as I was being described as a lindsey german supporter.
I cancelled by subs.
I have never been near the party since...have never bought a paper or magazine or signed an swp petition. So there is no doubt that I am not a member
This morning...5 years after I left... I received an invoice asking me to pay for copies of socialist worker!
No wonder they claim thousands of members if the disorganised, dishonest organisation still has me on its records
I wrote at the time explaining my decision as I was being described as a lindsey german supporter.
I cancelled by subs.
I have never been near the party since...have never bought a paper or magazine or signed an swp petition. So there is no doubt that I am not a member
This morning...5 years after I left... I received an invoice asking me to pay for copies of socialist worker!
No wonder they claim thousands of members if the disorganised, dishonest organisation still has me on its records
Similar threads
