SWP expulsions and squabbles

[One_Stop_Shop]

If anyone cares this is what today's Taaffeite SP consider a healthy and unhealthy regime with respect to Lenin:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Marxism/Lenin/15973/14-01-2013/party-amp-internal-regime

"Of course, permanent 'factions' - on the pattern of the LCR in France - are not a 'good thing' in a revolutionary organisation. They were certainly not the 'norm' in the Bolshevik party, with trends, tendencies and even 'factions' occasionally developing but then dissolving when the issues under discussion were resolved by the march of events or some left the ranks of the Bolshevik party for either opportunistic or ultra-left reasons. It is true that, at the Tenth Party Congress in the exceptional conditions of civil war, Lenin proposed a temporary ban on factions. However, it was then and remains today, a highly contentious issue. This action of Lenin undoubtedly became a starting point from an 'organisational' point of view for Stalin and the rising bureaucracy to legitimise later its lasting and formal ban on all 'factions'. But the burgeoning Stalinist bureaucratic counter-revolution utilised this 'precedent' - in a completely dishonest and disloyal fashion - to not only ban factions but stamp on all dissent, particularly of the Left Opposition, within the 'party'. Lenin believed that this temporary measure of 'banning' factions would be lifted as soon as the immediate danger of the civil war had passed.
To be sure, the existence of 'permanent factions' is not a reflection of a 'healthy regime', à la Lenin and Trotsky, as some in the Mandelite USFI believe. In fact, it denotes a lack of confidence in the leadership, an inability once the immediate issues under dispute recede, to then reunite the party. If you are in 'permanent opposition', which is what a 'permanent faction' means, why then remain within a party? Sometimes, it is better for a separation to take place in order that different ideas, programmes and tactics can be tested out before audiences of workers and young people. This, of course, then presupposes collaboration, an element of the united front discussed previously, is employed by separate organisations. Trotsky pointed out that the French social democracy was quite willing to tolerate tame 'permanent factions' because it gave the false impression that it was 'democratic'. However, as soon as a serious organised political oppositional current developed from the left, it was invariably shown the door."

CWI is politically confident:


"A politically confident leadership always acts in the fashion that the CWI has done. Lenin never resorted to disciplinary measures in the first instance nor did Trotsky advocate such a course in the International Left Opposition in the 1930s, for instance."

How does this even make sense in terms of "They were certainly not the 'norm' in the Bolshevik party". The Bolsheviks were a permenant faction within the RDSLP.

 

[discokermit]

The whole justification for the way they operate is that they need to prevent their members from being seduced by reformism after too much contact with stupid proles.

no it isn't. you're being silly.

 

[SpineyNorman]

no it isn't. you're being silly.

Really? Take another look at the CC's reply to Paris's contribution to the preconference IB. They pretty much come right out and say it.

 

[discokermit]

Really? Take another look at the CC's reply to Paris's contribution to the preconference IB. They pretty much come right out and say it.

i'm sick of reading the shit, to be honest.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Seriously - obviously I've caricatured the argument a tad but that's basically what they say. So they'd look a bit daft if they now backed down.

 

[frogwoman]

there are a few reformists in trotskyist parties tho, ive met them. actual reformists who just want a social democratic version of capitalism. i don't see how talking to people in the same party who may or may not be reformists is any less corrupting than talking to people outside the party who are. in either case it does not betray the fact that the cc has a great confidence in their ideas if the so-called vanguard of the class can be brainwashed into reformism by people. And just because someone has reformist politics doesn't mean that, say their sexual politics aren't a lot better than the CC

 

[emanymton]

I think we call agree that the CC can't just back down.

 

[cesare]

I don't get why they want an emergency conference? so they can lose the votes all over again?

They didn't lose by many and lots of adverse publicity since

 

[emanymton]

They didn't lose by many and lots of adverse publicity since

The only really close vote was on the disputes committee and that would not come up again at an emergency conference.
But even if they win, what the? Are hey planning to kick Callincos of the CC, the rest of them are pretty lightweight anyway

 

[SpineyNorman]

there are a few reformists in trotskyist parties tho, ive met them. actual reformists who just want a social democratic version of capitalism. i don't see how talking to people in the same party who may or may not be reformists is any less corrupting than talking to people outside the party who are. in either case it does not betray the fact that the cc has a great confidence in their ideas if the so-called vanguard of the class can be brainwashed into reformism by people. And just because someone has reformist politics doesn't mean that, say their sexual politics aren't a lot better than the CC

Oh I know - I don't agree with them obviously. But I think they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner by arguing in that way. I just can't see how they can back down now in any way without losing all credibility - but the bugger is that they're losing credibility by not doing too.

Can you imagine what it must be like for their members in union meetings and stuff? The kind of questions they must be having to answer? Jesus.

 

[cesare]

The only really close vote was on the disputes committee and that would not come up again at an emergency conference.
But even if they win, what the? Are hey planning to kick Callinicos of the CC, the rest of them are pretty lightweight anyway

Completely new CC?

 

[discokermit]

The only really close vote was on the disputes committee and that would not come up again at an emergency conference.

well, considering how rigged it was and the lack of any preparation time, i think they did pretty well. the opposition weren't even allowed a speaker at the expulsions meeting.

 

[emanymton]

Completely new CC?

Composed of who? i just don't get what there fighting for, all this it's our party lets fight for it nonsense. It never was their party. The only thing worth saving from the SWP is some of the people, and as any new leadership will end up just like the old the most likely outcome would be less people in the SWP worth saving. I am really tired and should go to bed so this is probably a bit incoherent.

 

[emanymton]

well, considering how rigged it was and the lack of any preparation time, i think they did pretty well. the opposition weren't even allowed a speaker at the expulsions meeting.

Yeah but I'm cynical and pessimistic.

 

[discokermit]

this is probably a but incoherent.

only a but.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't get why they want an emergency conference? so they can lose the votes all over again?

They don't think they'll lose the vote if it goes to delegate selection now.

 

[cesare]

Are they restricted, constitutionally, in what they can table for discussion and voting at an emergency conference?

 

[Delroy Booth]

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?

I doubt it, I've said far worse than that at meetings and no-one ever threatened to kick me out. I've gone to meetings and said to them, straight up, I'm not Leninist of any complexion, I think democratic centralism is stupid, I have no interest in selling the paper or party building, and whilst they don't like it they never stopped being anything other than decent and polite and accommodating towards me. Far more accommodating than I ever deserved in all honesty.

I think you get a lot more scope for criticism of the leadership, and more debate, within the SP compared to the SWP, but I put that down to the SP leadership being a lot more pragmatic than the SWP, not coz of a huge difference in outlook and ideology. They know it's in their interests to allow some degree of internal criticism, and to have a more relaxed attitude in general, rather than being in a position where they have to to go mad kicking people out left right and centre. I would't say it's coz they believe in something drastically different from the SWP's type of Leninism, I just think they're better at strategically coping with discontent.

 

[barney_pig]

The push for an emergency conference might be a honest wish to "reclaim the party" but it would also be a necessary step for anyone seeking to legitimise a split which would lay claim to be the true continuer of "the real IS tradition"; " we played by the rules, those ossified bureaucrats betrayed Cliffism, we are not the splitters, they are."

 

[barney_pig]

I doubt it, I've said far worse than that at meetings and no-one ever threatened to kick me out. I've gone to meetings and said to them, straight up, I'm not Leninist of any complexion, I think democratic centralism is stupid, I have no interest in selling the paper or party building, and whilst they don't like it they never stopped being anything other than decent and polite and accommodating towards me. Far more accommodating than I ever deserved in all honesty.

I think you get a lot more scope for criticism of the leadership, and more debate, within the SP compared to the SWP, but I put that down to the SP leadership being a lot more pragmatic than the SWP, not coz of a huge difference in outlook and ideology. They know it's in their interests to allow some degree of internal criticism, and to have a more relaxed attitude in general, rather than being in a position where they have to to go mad kicking people out left right and centre. I would't say it's coz they believe in something drastically different from the SWP's type of Leninism, I just think they're better at strategically coping with discontent.

It's obviously quite effective, both for leadership and members, you get to feel that you have freedom to voice your criticisms, Peter taafe gets to be leader in perpetuity.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The push for an emergency conference might be a honest wish to "reclaim the party" but it would also be a necessary step for anyone seeking to legitimise a split which would lay claim to be the true continuer of "the real IS tradition"; " we played by the rules, those ossified bureaucrats betrayed Cliffism, we are not the splitters, they are."

And that's why many of the undecided centre ground will vote against it and say slow down fellas let's not throw the baby out as well. The latest guest post on LT hinted at this when it said "For those who argue for a long term solution ..." Even people who think this incident could have been handled better (but don't share the belief that it was all a conspiracy by a sexist leadership or some such shit peddled by the Seymour identity faction) will rightly see the call for an emergency conference as a political move by a group who are on the way out anyway.

 

[emanymton]

I doubt it, I've said far worse than that at meetings and no-one ever threatened to kick me out. I've gone to meetings and said to them, straight up, I'm not Leninist of any complexion, I think democratic centralism is stupid, I have no interest in selling the paper or party building, and whilst they don't like it they never stopped being anything other than decent and polite and accommodating towards me. Far more accommodating than I ever deserved in all honesty.

I think you get a lot more scope for criticism of the leadership, and more debate, within the SP compared to the SWP, but I put that down to the SP leadership being a lot more pragmatic than the SWP, not coz of a huge difference in outlook and ideology. They know it's in their interests to allow some degree of internal criticism, and to have a more relaxed attitude in general, rather than being in a position where they have to to go mad kicking people out left right and centre. I would't say it's coz they believe in something drastically different from the SWP's type of Leninism, I just think they're better at strategically coping with discontent.

To be honest I think you could get away with that in the SWP as well as long as you were not being actively disruptive. You might get more people arguing it with you but you would not get expelled unless you actually did something to justify it. Thats justify it in SWP terms

 

[dennisr]

It's obviously quite effective, both for leadership and members, you get to feel that you have freedom to voice your criticisms, Peter taafe gets to be leader in perpetuity.

What like Allan Woods and Ted Grant did? Ohh, hang on....

How many time do folk have to insinuate the same tiresome (and still false...) point before it becomes "the truth"

Why not come out and say it? - stop pissing in the corners.

I'll wait for a 'knowing' slightly paranoid cryptic snide from Butchers to correct me.

 

[cesare]

Are people trying to say that the SP are SWP-lite or something?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Are people trying to say that the SP are SWP-lite or something?

No.

Some people are saying that there is a problem inherent in all Leninist organisations to some extent, and that the SP are Leninists.

 

[cesare]

No.

Some people are saying that there is a problem inherent in all Leninist organisations to some extent, and that the SP are Leninists.

Cheers.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Are people trying to say that the SP are SWP-lite or something?

I don't really want it to come accross that way, but I honestly reckon the SP isn't anything like as dysfunctional internally as the SWP is. That's the opinion of a lot of people I've met who were in the SWP too as it happens. I think they're less sectarian too, but then again I reckon the SWP has got worse for that over the years whereas the SP is slowly getting better. Christ it's a measure of how bad has the SWP has degenerated into a sect when they compared unfavourably to Militant ffs, I mean back in the day Militant were super-sectarian, and even today still capable of mind-blowing moments of sectarian nuttiness (NSSN anyone?)

But ultimately they're all tied to Leninism, and this is the root of the problem, so comparing one against the other looking for marginal differences between the two is a bit of waste of time.

 

[dennisr]

Leninism, and this is the root of the problem

Explain how "leninism" - by which you mean "democratic centralism" is the root of the SWPs present problems.

I thought a leading member of a small group of politically isolated and desperate caricatures of democratic centralism had been accused of raping a woman and that this had then been covered up, partially by using this organisational caricature - the end result being the collapse of the illusions held by many previously 'loyal' followers/members through the exposure of these hyporites? Looks to me like the culture and delusions of these individuals is the cause of their downfall - the organisational structure is just a means.

 

[articul8]

Explain how "leninism" - by which you mean "democratic centralism" is the root of the SWPs present problems

Isn't there a danger that once you posit yourselves as "expert revolutionaries" in relation to the class (ie. a vanguard) that the leadership of said vanguard also takes itself in turn to be more expert than the comrades who are just the "led"? And that the best interests of the class and the party become identical, and identical with the leadership of the party continuing to demonstrate and perpetuate its authority?

 

[Delroy Booth]

Explain how "leninism" - by which you mean "democratic centralism" is the root of the SWPs present problems

Well, that's a pretty big question tbh I'd have go away and gather my thoughts properly to answer it, but just quickly in regards to the SWP no other political tendency I know of would expel 4 people for having a private facebook conversation on the grounds of it constituting a "secret faction" I think that's nuts, and it's directly linked to the democratic centralism. In fact it was justified by the SWP as a violation of democratic centralism.

Now I anticipate the reply will be something like "Oh their type of Leninism/Democratic centralism is the wrong type, proper democratic centralism wouldn't allow for this" but to be honest I'm not convinced by that, there's decades worth of examples of Leninist groups behaving like sectarian nutters and I'm not sure you can always write off groups as individual examples, bad apples, I think it's an observable tendency.

And if you're asking me for a comprehensive criticism of Leninism then sorry I'm not spending all day doing that, there's plenty of others here who could do a better of job of that than I possibly could and besides it's quite a broad topic and it'd take me ages and I've got other things on.