SWP expulsions and squabbles

[The39thStep]

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?

This is roughly the point I was making to Frogwoman.

 

[dennisr]

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?

Of course - but what has that got to do with democratic centralism? - You see my point?. I do not see how any organisational form would have made the slightest bit of difference to the puffed up illusions of these idiots/caricatures.

 

[Random]

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.

If an anarchist group had failed to deal with an accused rapist, and failed because of the use of consensus decision making and lack of structure, you'd be justified in saying that this was a failure of anarchist theory and method. Likewise this is a failure of Leninist theory and method.

 

[dennisr]

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.

I am not counter-posing 'our democratic centralism' to 'their democratic centralism' as some sort of solution. It is an organisational form - with both limitations and advantages, dependant on the culture, understanding of those supporting that organisation.
I am arguing that the organisational form is not the cause of the SWP "leaderships" problems.

 

[cesare]

But if the problem is just the leadership; the organisational form will provide (in practice as well as theory) for the leadership to be replaced without damaging the organisation.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I am not counter-posing 'our democratic centralism' to 'their democratic centralism' as some sort of solution. It is an organisational form - with both limitations and advantages, dependant on the culture, understanding of those supporting that organisation.
I am arguing that the organisational form is not the cause of the SWP "leaderships" problems.

It might not be the sole cause, I think the main cause is clearly the rape accusation, but I think the organisational form is one of the reasons why this particular accusation wasn't dealt with.

And if you accept that the expulsion of those 4 members is one of the causes of this crisis, and it was clearly one the triggers that led to the full-blown crisis they're now in, then that was something that the SWP justified on the grounds of democratic centralism.

 

[Random]

And if you accept that the expulsion of those 4 members is one of the causes of this crisis, and it was clearly one the triggers that led to the full-blown crisis they're now in, then that was something that the SWP justified on the grounds of democratic centralism.

And the SWP leadership now say "we've voted on it, we have to now move on". That's democratic centralism, again.

 

[Delroy Booth]

And the SWP leadership now say "we've voted on it, we have to now move on". That's democratic centralism, again.

Exactly, this attempt to go "move on, nothing to see here" by the SWP leadership is being carrried out under the guise of adhering to democratic centralism. Now you can argue that this represents a betrayal of proper democratic centralism, which is kind of what I was anticipating, but dennis has already said he doesn't want to go down this route.

 

[brogdale]

Can't remember where I read this, but one blogger that I read seemed to get to the crux of the issue by posing the simple question of what would the party done if the alleged had been found 'guilty'?
An examination of that (hypothetical) scenario is one that challenges the very notion of Leninism as a legitimate revolutionary means to depose capitalism. The decision not to engage with the capitalist justice system demonstrates that the CC perceive themselves as a legitimate alternative, but their ability to discharge justice does not even appear legitimate to their membership, let alone 'ordinary' working people.
If revolutionaries propose to replace the existing state with another, an almost complete lack of legitimacy shows how a revolution would be lost.

 

[dennisr]

If an anarchist group had failed to deal with an accused rapist, and failed because of the use of consensus decision making and lack of structure, you'd be justified in saying that this was a failure of anarchist theory and method. Likewise this is a failure of Leninist theory and method.

Its an exampIe of the problem with the arguement above - To continue your example: I should not be using the failure of the group to deal with the situation as a stick to attack the organisational form it takes - or that groups particular caricature of the the organisational form (if we are continuing the analogy here) - because that would not get to the root cause of the problem.

Would a small isolated anarchist group facing the same problem be in a better position because it does not organise using a democratic centralist form?

if any thing the SWP leadership seem to have doubly shot themselves in the foot by trying to use bureaucratic attempts to stifle genuine discussion to reach a genuine agreed resolution

 

[dennisr]

Exactly, this attempt to go "move on, nothing to see here" by the SWP leadership is being carrried out under the guise of adhering to democratic centralism. Now you can argue that this represents a betrayal of proper democratic centralism, which is kind of what I was anticipating, but dennis has already said he doesn't want to go down this route.

Remind me how well this particular joke version of 'democratic centralism' worked for the SWP 'leadership" ? - I had the impression it has completely blown up in their faces.
But, again, my thought is that the organisational tactics they tried to use was not the cause of their problem.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Remind me how well this particular joke version of 'democratic centralism' worked for the SWP 'leadership" ? - I had the impression it has completely blown up in their faces.
But, again, my thought is that the organisational tactics they tried to use was not the cause of their problem.

So ultimately you are saying it's the wrong type of democratic centralism, a "joke" version of democratic centralism? In which case I refer you back to that post where I addressed that a few replies ago.

Ok here's another example - frogwoman was actually asking on this thread only yesterday whether or not she'd get into trouble for saying what she's said. Now when you've got members looking over their shoulder, worried that a bit of sincere and thoughtul criticism of their own party on the internet could get them in trouble, then I think that's a sign there's a definite problem within the organisation. That's not healthy y'know, people shouldn't be scared to criticise their own party, and especially not someone whose criticism has been thoughtful and considered.

I think these problems come from democratic centralism, it's an inheritance from some of the worst aspects of the Bolshevik party that have been fetishized and should've been abandoned years ago.

And I happily concede the SP isn't actually that bad for this, at least compared to other left groups, but it's hardly perfect, is it now? This shouldn't be happening at all in my opinion.

 

[dennisr]

But if the problem is just the leadership; the organisational form will provide (in practice as well as theory) for the leadership to be replaced without damaging the organisation.

I'd agree with that. I do think their organisational form is a problem. It is not the cause.

The way the "leadership" have used their joke version of democratic centralism to try and cover themselves has exposed the failings in the SWPs structure - to the SWPs membership and it is damaging the standing of and trust in this organisation more than any of these leaders could ever have imagined.

Is this nightmare a useful addition to a fundamental crtique of leninist organisation forms though? - Not really

 

[Random]

I'd agree with that. I do think their organisational form is a problem. It is not the cause.

If it's a problem, then it's probably one of the causes. Your argument right now seems to be saying that guns don't kill people, only guns used by the wrong people. The methods used to cause the damage we're talking about now are Leninist methods.

Saying that the SWP aren't real Leninists because they're isolated and authoritarian is ignoring the fact that Leninism is all about creating a party that sees itself as an elite body that has better consciousness than the class. leninism is also about creating tightly knit parties that can act as underground conspiracies. Isolation and authoritarianism are what bolshevism are about.

 

[Random]

Its an exampIe of the problem with the arguement above - To continue your example: I should not be using the failure of the group to deal with the situation as a stick to attack the organisational form it takes - or that groups particular caricature of the the organisational form (if we are continuing the analogy here) - because that would not get to the root cause of the problem.

No, to continue my example, you SHOULD be using the failure of the group as a stick to attack the organisational form.

Maybe you missed out a word, when you read my post?

 

[brogdale]

I'd agree with that. I do think their organisational form is a problem. It is not the cause.

The way the "leadership" have used their joke version of democratic centralism to try and cover themselves has exposed the failings in the SWPs structure - to the SWPs membership and it is damaging the standing of and trust in this organisation more than any of these leaders could ever have imagined.

Is this nightmare a useful addition to a fundamental crtique of leninist organisation forms though? - Not really

But the inability to act as 'a state within a state', with any legitimacy (even within the vanguard), must undermine credibility of the capability of the organisation to effect a better state.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Ok here's another example - frogwoman was actually asking on this thread only yesterday whether or not she'd get into trouble for saying what she's said. Now when you've got members looking over their shoulder, worried that a bit of sincere and thoughtul criticism of their own party on the internet could get them in trouble, then I think that's a sign there's a definite problem within the organisation. That's not healthy y'know, people shouldn't be scared to criticise their own party, and especially not someone whose criticism has been thoughtful and considered.

She wasn't Delroy - someone else was asking her if she'd be in trouble for it. Not really the same thing.

 

[dennisr]

So ultimately you are saying it's the wrong type of democratic centralism, a "joke" version of democratic centralism? In which case I refer you back to that post where I addressed that a few replies ago.

Ok here's another example - frogwoman was actually asking on this thread only yesterday whether or not she'd get into trouble for saying what she's said. Now when you've got members looking over their shoulder, worried that a bit of sincere and thoughtul criticism of their own party on the internet could get them in trouble, then I think that's a sign there's a definite problem within the organisation. That's not healthy y'know, people shouldn't be scared to criticise their own party, and especially not someone whose criticism has been thoughtful and considered.

I think these problems come from democratic centralism, it's an inheritance from some of the worst aspects of the Bolshevik party that have been fetishized and should've been abandoned years ago.

And I happily concede the SP isn't actually that bad for this, at least compared to other left groups, but it's hardly perfect, is it now? This shouldn't be happening at all in my opinion.

I refer you back to post 1894. No.

Frogwoman was asking questions in response to the "advice" and insinuations over a series of posts of a number of posters trying to push their view of what the organisational form means (along with various ridiculous insinuations about 'secret' agendas and 'organisations within organisations' and particularly nasty insinustions of 'members' being gulible sheep who are being contolled and following leaders uncritically). No, of course she would not "get into trouble". That is a complete caricature - you know that, I know that and I hope that she is confident enough to see that.

I could give you plenty of examples - one comrade in particular who, frankly, I think should be chucked out of the SP - has spouted shite for years online, alienating just about everybody he pontificates at. If ever you wanted to know the party line on a particular situation you only have to read his latest meanderings to know what it definately is not - He is still a member of the SP (feck knows why he remains . On the other hand we have serious leading trade unionists who have joined the SP who still have very different views to the majority of the CWI on, for instance, the situation in Northern Ireland. It is not a problem - do anarchist organisations in the UK demand everyone agrees on every dot and comma of their collective programme before they are allowed to sign up? Of course not.

The SP has had plenty of discussion on - and questioning of - 'democratic centralism' - there is material available online - what does the terms actually mean, questioning relevance in what are very different circumstances to Russia in 1917, balance of democracy/central organisation, terminology even.

What is happening is that a bunch of pretend "revolutionary leaders" have pulled an organisational form out of their arse - disguised in pseudo-leninist terminology - to try and cover and legitimise their failings. It has completely backfired.

 

[dennisr]

But the inability to act as 'a state within a state', with any legitimacy (even within the vanguard), must undermine credibility of the capability of the organisation to effect a better state.

Maybe that organisation should be a wee bit more realistic about what actually exists rather than what it wishes to exist - especially in a serious situation with such serious accusations? The credibility of the organisation is undermined by its delusions/illusions rather than a realistic appraisal of what actually exists.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I could give you plenty of examples - one comrade in particular who, frankly, I think should be chucked out of the SP - has spouted shite for years online, alienating just about everybody he pontificates at. If ever you wanted to know the party line on a patticular situation you only have t oread his latest meanderings to know what it definately is not - He is still a member of the SP (feck knows why he remains .

Who's that then? Don't be shy, name names.

And apologies if I mis-read the nature of Frogwoman's post.

 

[dennisr]

Who's that then? Don't be shy, name names.

Just go on any leftie trainspotting site and you will find his rantings - it would take you a long while to realise he is actually a member of the SP

 

[articul8]

Is it that fella from Gloucester?

 

[dennisr]

Leninism is all about creating a party that sees itself as an elite body that has better consciousness than the class. leninism is also about creating tightly knit parties that can act as underground conspiracies. Isolation and authoritarianism are what bolshevism are about.

Yes, that is one of the caricatures.

 

[mk12]

I refer you back to post 1894. No.

Frogwoman was asking questions in response to the "advice" and insinuations over a series of posts of a number of posters trying to push their view of what the organisational form means (along with various ridiculous insinuations about 'secret' agendas and 'organisations within organisations' and particularly nasty insinustions of 'members' being gulible sheep who are being contolled and following leaders uncritically). No, of course she would not "get into trouble". That is a complete caricature - you know that, I know that and I hope that she is confident enough to see that.

As someone who was disciplined by a Leninist party (and told off by other members via PM just for airing some of my views) I was just giving Frogwoman some advice. It seems that the SP, as well as SP members on here, are far more tolerant of this sort of thing so that's good. I haven't tried to push any views on her at all, and I don't think others have either.

 

[brogdale]

Maybe that organisation should be a wee bit more realistic about what actually exists rather than what it wishes to exist - especially in a serious situation with such serious accusations? The credibility of the organisation is undermined by its delusions/illusions rather than a realistic appraisal of what actually exists.

Delusional about its own particular potential, or delusional about the notion of revolution via a workers state?

 

[dennisr]

And the SWP leadership now say "we've voted on it, we have to now move on". That's democratic centralism, again.

Which shows the delusional views of both the SWP (in their own very special way), and yourself (in your own very special way) in this organisational form.

Look what happened as a result of their idiocy. its what this thread is about.

 

[dennisr]

As someone who was disciplined by a Leninist party (and told off by other members via PM just for airing some of my views) I was just giving Frogwoman some advice. It seems that the SP, as well as SP members on here, are far more tolerant of this sort of thing so that's good. I haven't tried to push any views on her at all, and I don't think others have either.

No, you were, unfortunately, 'disciplined' by the SWP. At least you will be able to dine out on that momentous event for years

 

[Delroy Booth]

Which shows the delusional views of both the SWP (in their own very special way), and yourself (in your own very special way) in this organisational form.

Look what happened as a result of their idiocy. its what this thread is about.

you say "as a result of their idiocy" but they may be idiots, but they're idiots acting in accordance with a set of theories called Leninism and/or democratic centralism. It's all blown up in their faces because they expelled 4 members of the party for forming a "secret faction" by having a private facebook conversation ffs dennis, a more perfect example of the failings of democratic centralism you'd struggle to find.

 

[dennisr]

Delusional about its own particular potential, or delusional about the notion of revolution via a workers state?

That it can/has already replaced bourg. courts and systems. Weather it ever could is another matter.

 

[mk12]

dennisr

Yes, a Leninist organisation. But, judging by posts on here, the SP is far more tolerant so Frogwoman needn't take that advice.