SWP expulsions and squabbles

[dennisr]

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.

Its a perfect example of the failing of the SWP's version of a set of theories. I struggle to find what it has to do with what may or may not be learnt from the organisational forms the bolshevik party took in early 19th century russia - beyond similar terminology

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm glad we're finally having a debate about the pros and cons of Leninism on these boards.

 

[mk12]

How long before the K word is mentioned?

 

[dennisr]

I'm glad we're finally having a debate about the pros and cons of Leninism on these boards.

Some hope of that

 

[The39thStep]

I'm glad we're finally having a debate about the pros and cons of Leninism on these boards.

yeh, its quite a new topic.

 

[SpineyNorman]

To be serious though, I'm not sure how helpful the term 'Leninism' even is in this context. While I'd rather avoid drawing up a division between 'good' and 'bad' Leninism it's clear to see that what's called 'Leninism' in one group isn't necessarily the same as that of another.

So surely it's better to look at the organizational forms employed by the specific groups rather than seeing problems with those employed by one group as being by definition transferable to any group that calls itself Leninist?

There are clearly some things that the SWP and SP share in terms of the way we're structured. But there are also plenty that we don't. What might be more useful would be to try and work out which of these was the problem. Cos I'd say one of the things that's at the very least helped things brew and degenerate as much as they have has been the ban on factions - something the SP doesn't have.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Its a perfect example of the failing of the SWP's version of a set of theories. I struggle to find what it has to do with what may or may not be learnt from the organisational forms the bolshevik party took in early 19th century russia - beyond similar terminology

This is what I mean, it's never a problem with democratic centralism, it's always a problem with "[INSERT RIVAL SECT]'s version of democratic centralism" well I'm sorry I don't buy it. Democratic centralism is the reason the SWP felt like it could expell 4 people for having a facebook converstion and get away with it, and democratic centralism is the means by which the CC of the SWP is trying to get out of the very messy situation they've got themselves into.

And I think the obsession over secret factions can be traced back to the banning of factions in the Bolshevik/Communist Party, which I think was in 1923, although I don't want to get into a "who knows the most about the Russian Revolution" competition with you coz I think I'd probably lose.

Perhaps one day when something like this happens in the Socialist Party (and I don't mean rape I mean the arbritrary expulsion of members on the grounds of democratic centralism by an out of touch leadership) you'll change your tune but until then we're stuck on this merry-go-round.

 

[Random]

I struggle to find what it has to do with what may or may not be learnt from the organisational forms the bolshevik party took in early 19th century russia - beyond similar terminology

That's because you're a leninist

 

[Delroy Booth]

How long before the K word is mentioned?

Kyriarchy?

 

[articul8]

Ketamine?

 

[SpineyNorman]

This is what I mean, it's never a problem with democratic centralism, it's always a problem with "[INSERT RIVAL SECT]'s version of democratic centralism" well I'm sorry I don't buy it. Democratic centralism is the reason the SWP felt like it could expell 4 people for having a facebook converstion and get away with it, and democratic centralism is the means by which the CC of the SWP is trying to get out of the very messy situation they've got themselves into.

And I think the obsession over secret factions can be traced back to the banning of factions in the Bolshevik/Communist Party, which I think was in 1923, although I don't want to get into a "who knows the most about the Russian Revolution" competition with you coz I think I'd probably lose.

Perhaps one day when something like this happens in the Socialist Party (and I don't mean rape I mean the arbritrary expulsion of members on the grounds of democratic centralism by an out of touch leadership) you'll change your tune but until then we're stuck on this merry-go-round.

Yeah but now you've got the opposite problem to the one you're saying dennis has - how do you explain why nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the SP? I mean, if it's all down to Leninism surely it should have done by now?

 

[Delroy Booth]

Cos I'd say one of the things that's at the very least helped things brew and degenerate as much as they have has been the ban on factions - something the SP doesn't have.

This I agree with. And the fact there's no ban on factions in the SP is probably one of the reasons why it's better than the SWP to some extent.

But here's a question, perhaps dennis could help me out, what is the procedure for starting a faction in the Socialist Party? Has it ever happened in recent history? I never saw a copy of the party constitution the whole time I was a member, and I asked more than once. And I remember being taken down to Socialism 2010 in a minibus and I asked (coz I had a fairly senior Huddersfield based member captive for a few hours so I thought I'd grill him a bit) "what would be the procedure if someone had a complaint agaisnt a full-timer and say a branch (or a few branches) wanted to remove them" and I don't remember getting a straight answer, but the answer definitely involved factions.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Yeah but now you've got the opposite problem to the one you're saying dennis has - how do you explain why nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the SP? I mean, if it's all down to Leninism surely it should have done by now?

Well we've come full circle coz that's kind of what I was talking about earlier in the thread, I think the differences are marginal and that it's not about organisational forms but a conscious attempt to be a bit more relaxed and less sectarian, partially out of a self-preservation instinct - The Socialist Party will outlive everything on the left they'll survive the Posadist nuclear holocaust and be stood outside your fallout shelter demanding to nationalise the top 300 monopolies (compensation only on the basis of proven need) the moment you get out.

And y'know what in all seriousness I suspect it's only a matter of time before something like this does happen in the SP, it might take a longer but it will happen. It's an inadaquet organisational method and it needs to be changed into something more democratic, sooner or later something will come along to expose that inadaquecy.

 

[Random]

Yeah but now you've got the opposite problem to the one you're saying dennis has - how do you explain why nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the SP? I mean, if it's all down to Leninism surely it should have done by now?

How come the Socialist party leadership has never used the party organisation to get its own way, including suppressing dissent, all in the name of revolution? I'm no expert, but I'd guess that it has, for example around the end of the Poll Tax years I know very many members left in disgust.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This I agree with. And the fact there's no ban on factions in the SP is probably one of the reasons why it's better than the SWP to some extent.

But here's a question, perhaps dennis could help me out, what is the procedure for starting a faction in the Socialist Party? Has it ever happened in recent history? I never saw a copy of the party constitution the whole time I was a member, and I asked more than once. And I remember being taken down to Socialism 2010 in a minibus and I asked (coz I had a fairly senior Huddersfield based member captive for a few hours so I thought I'd grill him a bit) "what would be the procedure if someone had a complaint agaisnt a full-timer and say a branch (or a few branches) wanted to remove them" and I don't remember getting a straight answer, but the answer definitely involved factions.

I'll find out if Denis doesn't know - be interested in that myself.

 

[SpineyNorman]

And y'know what in all seriousness I suspect it's only a matter of time before something like this does happen in the SP, it might take a longer but it will happen. It's an inadaquet organisational method and it needs to be changed into something more democratic, sooner or later something will come along to expose that inadaquecy.

Not being funny but I've got no idea what you mean - can you be more specific? Where is the democratic deficit and how should it be remedied?

 

[sihhi]

How long before the K word is mentioned?

If people want to talk about Russia fine, I don't.

I'm interested in the SWP but also how the SP operates, why a SP operative can tell me, even though I wan't interested in the conversation: 'People who call themselves socialists usually join a party at some point after reading the different newspapers. It's how socialists get things done.'

I suppose I am considered biased because of disagreement with number of SP things in the present/past (CNWP, NO2EU, NSSN, aspects of TUSC, SPNI position over the loyalist flag agitation). I am still unclear about what parts of the various accounts of how the Socialist Alliance in 1999-2000-2001 caved in on itself - you get a different account if you are SWP, SP or non-aligned socialist (like Alan Woodward RIP).

 

[Delroy Booth]

Not being funny but I've got no idea what you mean - can you be more specific? Where is the democratic deficit and how should it be remedied?

There's a number of things, but the problem is I don't know enough about the functioning of the party on a national level to really put forward a considerd, detailed and informed critique. The fact I was a member for nearly 3 years and remained so ignorant of the party's structures is itself pretty damning i'd have thought. The flow of information to the members is often very restricted in my experience. But again we're getting bogged down in trottery here, I'm not sure I want to be the person to make this critique.

 

[SpineyNorman]

How come the Socialist party leadership has never used the party organisation to get its own way, including suppressing dissent, all in the name of revolution? I'm no expert, but I'd guess that it has, for example around the end of the Poll Tax years I know very many members left in disgust.

Can't really comment on that because I don't know about it. And that was before the open turn, when things were a lot more secretive wasn't it?

I just think think the term Leninism is of limited utility. Better to examine the actual structures in the different parties.

You see - and I'm not just saying this cos I'm a member, I'd say it even if I'd left - the relative openness within the SP has helped foster a culture where people do question the party line and the leadership. There's plenty of boring hacks obviously but they don't dominate in the same way as they do in the SWP (I speak with experience in both parties here). I just don't think the leadership would get away with it if they suddenly tried to change that - they'd lose half the membership. So I don't see how it could ever be in their interests to do that - not unless things changed a hell of a lot anyway.

 

[dennisr]

How come the Socialist party leadership has never used the party organisation to get its own way, including suppressing dissent, all in the name of revolution? I'm no expert, but I'd guess that it has, for example around the end of the Poll Tax years I know very many members left in disgust.

A leading section of the previous party leadership - primarily our then great-leader - the unbroken ted - did use the structure of the party to try and impose its own way - its just the majority of the membership did not go with it. This went up to an international level with involvement of all sections. Because of the nature of the organisation - the culture within the organisaton as much as the democratic structures available - the result of this spat was the leaving of Ted Grant, Allan Woods and a section of the old leadership. i think that's a sign of a reasonably healthy organisation - despite the limitations imposed by the witchhunt in the LP and a couple of unions around the time. it is something i have repeated quite a few times on these boards - that the organisational set up is only as good as the involvement, self-education and experience of that organisations membership.

This was the major dispute at the end of the poll tax. Unfortunately 2 years of tearing ourselves apart resulted in losing all of the gains - the many people interested in the then Militant - that were a result of the poll tax campaign. Most folk who were vaguely interested thought (fully understandably...) feck that - this lot are as nuts as we have been warned they were

I would say more folk simply dropped out of activity than joined either faction.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i think the term democratic centralism has historically been used to describe so many different forms of organisation that as a term in itself it doesn't really mean a lot. if the core principle is that members are expected to carry out the democratically agreed upon practical strategies of the organisation, then i'm still not opposed to the idea (why be in an organisation otherwise?) - but i would always say as a caveat that being expected to carry out a practical strategy should not entail also being expected to argue for things which one doesn't agree with, or otherwise adapt ones own ideas to that of the organisation. the realm of your own opinion has to stay your own.

 

[Random]

An leading section of the previous party leadership did use the structure of the party to try and impose its own way. This went up to an international level with involvement of all sections. Because of the nature of the organisation - the culture within the organisaton as much as the democratic structures available - the result of this spat was the leaving of Ted Grant, Allan Woods and a section of the old leadership.

This was the major dispute at the end of the poll tax. Unfortunately 2 years of tearing ourselves apart resulted in losing all of the gains - the many people interested in the then Militant - that were a result of the poll tax campaign. Most folk who were vaguely interested thought (fully understandably...) feck that - this lot are as nuts as we have been warned they were

I would say more folk simply dropped out of activity than joined either faction.

Thanks for that. Sounds to me that this was also a problem associated with the leninist mode of organising in modern Europe. Isn't it quite common for these parties to react to success by either splitting and dump their gains, like happened with Militant, or dissolving into a wider and non-leninist grouping, like the trots in Syrizia.

 

[Random]

i think the term democratic centralism has historically been used to describe so many different forms of organisation that as a term in itself it doesn't really mean a lot.

But leninist parties say that DC is one of the qualities that raise them above other parties. They define themselves by the fact that they have this organisational tradition.

 

[Das Uberdog]

But leninist parties say that DC is one of the qualities that raise them above other parties. They define themselves by the fact that they have this organisational tradition.

what do you think they mean by DC btw? another problem with this debate, i think, is that the term isn't really being defined by either side.

 

[Random]

what do you think they mean by DC btw?

TBH it doesn't really matter what I define it as. What is clear is that DC is very often a good tool for the use of an authoritarian group elite. The same is true of lots of party structures, though, not just the leninist version.

 

[dennisr]

Thanks for that. Sounds to me that this was also a problem associated with the leninist mode of organising in modern Europe. Isn't it quite common for these parties to react to success by either splitting and dump their gains, like happened with Militant, or dissolving into a wider and non-leninist grouping, like the trots in Syrizia.

It wasn't a reaction to success it was a reaction to the increasing lack of success in the Labour Party - a discussion on how we should react to the witchhunt and changing nature of the Labour Party - our remaining two MPs had been expelled, members were being expelled, the entire Liverpool LP was shut down (most not even supporters of the militant) etc etc etc. The very successes (partial though they were...) of the poll tax and liverpool meant we were going to be fucked over bigtime - a question of how do 'we' gain long-term (inside or outside the LP for example)

But yes, different groups have tried lots of different ways of getting around the practical problems they face - including by organisational means. Not just "leninist" groupings. I could be cheeky and argue that there seems to be a tendency for anarchist groupings to split once they reach over 15 members - but that would be trite.

 

[brogdale]

TBH it doesn't really matter what I define it as. What is clear is that DC is very often a good tool for the use of an authoritarian group elite. The same is true of lots of party structures, though, not just the leninist version.

Quite.
Maintaining obedience to the will of the nascent workers state appears problematic amongst the 'vanguardists', let alone 'ordinary' working people.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Random

out of interest, do you have any specific disagreements with the following re-quoted excerpt from my post above?

[...] the core principle is that members are expected to carry out the democratically agreed upon practical strategies of the organisation [...] but i would always say as a caveat that being expected to carry out a practical strategy should not entail also being expected to argue for things which one doesn't agree with, or otherwise adapt ones own ideas to that of the organisation. the realm of your own opinion has to stay your own.

if not then i think the phantom ghost of DC you're angling at is just that, a phantom. as you say, the problems facing the SWP now aren't singularly related to organisations tying themselves to ideas of democratic centralism, though in the case of the SWP today DC is one of the theoretical tenets which they have used to create their undemocratic atmosphere.

 

[dennisr]

Well we've come full circle coz that's kind of what I was talking about earlier in the thread, I think the differences are marginal and that it's not about organisational forms but a conscious attempt to be a bit more relaxed and less sectarian, partially out of a self-preservation instinct

I guess you could argue that there is 'self-presevation' in that - if the leadership just told the rest of the members of that organisation what to do and what to think those members would simply walk away - there would be no organisation left to lead

That's the thing about my own take on leninist organisation - it depends on a culture of trust and understanding to work - or it all goes pear-shaped
I don't think is is a concious attempt to be "a bit more relaxed" it is one of the basic pointers that the beardy old men in russia made - a concious culture of education, discussion, gaining experience and self-education - to develop critical thinking and self-suficency. Firstly this, for me over the organisational structures in which those matters can be nurtured. After all there is little point in a revolutionary who has to call up the leadership to find out what they should be doing when the 'revolution' rears its confused little head (especially given that leadership will already be banged up or have gone into hiding).

All this is, of course, with the exception of Huddersfield ;-0 )

 

[Random]

if not then i think the phantom ghost of DC you're angling at is just that, a phantom. as you say, the problems facing the SWP now aren't singularly related to organisations tying themselves to ideas of democratic centralism, though in the case of the SWP today DC is one of the theoretical tenets which they have used to create their undemocratic atmosphere.

It's not a phantom, it's a shibboleth. Leninists aren't the only parties that develop an authoritarian leadership, but a leninist party, by definition, must have a leadership that is endowed with authority over the membership.