SWP expulsions and squabbles

[xslavearcx]

There's certainly some of the younger SSP/SSY ex/current members in and around ISG/CoR.

i guess that explains going from 39 to 180 odd members.. fair play to them, but probably just a sign of repackaged same old same old in glasgow...

 

[mk12]

frogwoman

OK, just be careful. Lenin wouldn't have had any of it though!

 

[frogwoman]

I will do yeah.

 

[Fedayn]

i guess that explains going from 39 to 180 odd members.. fair play to them, but probably just a sign of repackaged same old same old in glasgow...

No, it wouldn't explain such a rise alone. They certainly recruited amongst some of those involved with the occupation at glasgow Uni a few years ago. They've lost members already too. One of their-I think-leading members works in my office.

 

[xslavearcx]

i guess if its so student-centric their membership is going to be affected a lot whenever members finish their degrees..

 

[frogwoman]

How do the ICC do things btw? I know they are a bit mental with their idea about the "theses on parasitism" etc and from what I can see from their website about this issue they are pretty paranoid about splits and the like, but they are not trots are they? Are they still leninist though or what?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?

If it is then they'd best boot me out now - I'm not censoring myself for anyone.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Really?? I didn't know that!

What does the Irish SP do?

It varies. No system is prescribed. Last time I can recall we first voted on the number of leadership slots then voted by individual nominee. You could nominate an individual, a part of a slate or a full slate.

 

[mk12]

frogwoman

Left Communists, not Trots, or council communists. Critical of a number of early Bolshevik policies and sympathetic to Bukharin and those opposed to signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, iirc.

 

[SpineyNorman]

How do the ICC do things btw? I know they are a bit mental with their idea about the "theses on parasitism" etc and from what I can see from their website about this issue they are pretty paranoid about splits and the like, but they are not trots are they? Are they still leninist though or what?

I thought they were left communists aren't they? Pretty sure they're not Leninists anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

If it is then they'd best boot me out now - I'm not censoring myself for anyone.

Hudds anarchists for you

 

[frogwoman]

frogwoman

Left Communists, not Trots, or council communists. Critical of a number of early Bolshevik policies and sympathetic to Bukharin and those opposed to signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, iirc.

That's what I thought. But they seem to have a pretty unhealthy internal regime as well with their parasitic milieu stuff. Are they still democratic centralist then?

 

[butchersapron]

I thought they were left communists aren't they? Pretty sure they're not Leninists anyway.

They're proper leninists. What is wrong with you people?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I reckon if I got kicked out I'd try and set up the first functioning branch of Proletarian Democracy.

 

[Fedayn]

Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?

As much as I have my disagreements with the CWI they were never censorious in the way/extent the SWP were/are. before the 'open turn' they were very secretive but even then dissent, disagreement and even open criticism never seemed to get much administrative reaction. Disagreement was there and rather well tolerated.

 

[butchersapron]

That's what I thought. But they seem to have a pretty unhealthy internal regime as well with their parasitic milieu stuff. Are they still democratic centralist then?

Why are you obsessed by them? The parasite stuff was finished ten years ago.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?

The assumption that being "intolerant" is a feature of being "genuinely Leninist" isn't one that most Socialist Party members would share with you. The SP doesn't make a habit of booting people out for ideological disagreement or for saying that they don't agree with this or that in public. (WIthin reason. If someone was to actually go out and try to actively undermine some recent decision they might get a different response.)

 

[SpineyNorman]

They're proper leninists. What is wrong with you people?

To be honest the only time I've ever come across any of them was when I was trolling revleft a couple of years back and I got the distinct impression that they were anti-Lenin. Then again they're all mental on there.

 

[mk12]

That's good, if true. But if the SP tolerates ideological disagreement within its ranks, how can it be described as a Leninist/Trotskyist party?

 

[mk12]

To be honest the only time I've ever come across any of them was when I was trolling revleft a couple of years back and I got the distinct impression that they were anti-Lenin. Then again they're all mental on there.

I think they like Lenin, although they think he made some errors of judgment at certain points. I guess their stress on the Party makes them Leninist to some extent.

 

[butchersapron]

The assumption that being "intolerant" is a feature of being "genuinely Leninist" isn't one that most Socialist Party members would share with you. The SP doesn't make a habit of booting people out for ideological disagreement or for saying that they don't agree with this or that in public. (WIthin reason. If someone was to actually go out and try to actively undermine some recent decision they might get a different response.)

So non trots and people who don't believe in that Lenin shit, yeah let them all in.

 

[frogwoman]

fair enough, tho some of the things ive seen about it when i read their website were a lot more recent than that

 

[sihhi]

To be honest the only time I've ever come across any of them was when I was trolling revleft a couple of years back and I got the distinct impression that they were anti-Lenin. Then again they're all mental on there.

They are in no way anti-Lenin:

What remains essential is that during the rising tide of the revolution in Russia, the Lenin of the April Theses was never an isolated prophet, nor was he holding himself above the vulgar masses, but he was the clearest voice of the most revolutionary tendency within the proletariat, a voice which showed the way which lead to the victory of October 1917.

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/303/April-theses

One google from their website is all it takes

 

[SpineyNorman]

Fair enough. Maybe I've got them mixed up with someone else.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

That's good, if true. But if the SP tolerates ideological disagreement within its ranks, how can it be described as a Leninist/Trotskyist party?

Look, I genuinely don't like arguments which start "Well, a Grand Old Beard said...", but your question sort of presupposes that sort of response, so forgive me in advance.

The parties led by Lenin and Trotsky all contained ideological differences within their ranks. In fact, they contained rather wider disagreements than the Socialist Party does. The notion that the party must be politically homogenous and must not tolerate dissent outside the ranks and/or must not tolerate organised internal dissent is something that stems from the 1921 ban on factions and then further innovations by, amongst others, Zinoviev and then Stalin.

 

[mk12]

Look, I genuinely don't like arguments which start "Well, a Grand Old Beard said...", but your question sort of presupposes that sort of response, so forgive me in advance.

The parties led by Lenin and Trotsky all contained ideological differences within their ranks. In fact, they contained rather wider disagreements than the Socialist Party does. The notion that the party must be politically homogenous and must not tolerate dissent outside the ranks and/or must not tolerate organised internal dissent is something that stems from the 1921 ban on factions and then further innovations by, amongst others, Zinoviev and then Stalin.

I agree that these parties contained different perspectives on a number of issues, but did they really tolerate members who openly disagreed with central principles such as democratic centralism?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So non trots and people who don't believe in that Lenin shit, yeah let them all in.

If they agree with the main thrust of our policies and perspectives, I don't really care what they think about Lenin or Trotsky.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I agree that these parties contained different perspectives on a number of issues, but did they really tolerate members who openly disagreed with central principles such as democratic centralism?

They didn't have these discussions using terms like "democratic centralism" for most of the period, but yes, they certainly involved people who had and expressed different views about party organisation. Remember, both the RSDLP and the Bolsheviks had at various times minority factions with their own public large circulation newspapers.

 

[butchersapron]

If they agree with our policies and perspectives, I don't really care what they think about Lenin or Trotsky.

You used to. You don't care if they somehow disagree with Lenin and the way that you organize your party as long as they join and don't get told they now agree with all this Lenin shit

 

[butchersapron]

Look, I genuinely don't like arguments which start "Well, a Grand Old Beard said...", but your question sort of presupposes that sort of response, so forgive me in advance.

The parties led by Lenin and Trotsky all contained ideological differences within their ranks. In fact, they contained rather wider disagreements than the Socialist Party does. The notion that the party must be politically homogenous and must not tolerate dissent outside the ranks and/or must not tolerate organised internal dissent is something that stems from the 1921 ban on factions and then further innovations by, amongst others, Zinoviev and then Stalin.

Whose 1921 innovation?