SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yeah but so is 'freedom', 'democracy' etc. Groups will appeal to the values their members hold when justifying things. Not sure how much you can really read into that though.
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Yeah but so is 'freedom', 'democracy' etc. Groups will appeal to the values their members hold when justifying things. Not sure how much you can really read into that though.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
DC, ideally, funnels legitimacy from bottom to top and then back down in a disciplined, organised manner. there's nothing innately wrong with that imo, so long as legitimacy genuinely does come from below initially - that is premised upon there being genuinely accountable and democratic structures. when you say 'Leninism' or 'DC' here though, none of that has been accounted for, and the terms really don't mean anything without further specification
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
But leninism is the reverse. They recruit people who "hate the tories" and who know very little on leninism, and then try to then educate them/instill respect for their own shibboleths.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
that's what the SWP do. i'd agree with the SP posters on here though, who argue that the internal environment of the SP is a very different kettle of fish and not really comparable.
i know people who've had problems in the SP, but on a whole other level to my experiences in the SWP
dennisr
the acceptable face
I guess - for tactical reasons in particular circumstances - there is a point where - once a tactic has been hammered out and agreed by a majority - the individual member may be asked to carry out a tactic they did not agree with in the earlier discussion - but that loyalty to an organisation is only going to remain if you agree with the vast majority of that organisations collective views. Ultimately, if people disagree, they walk - or refuse to act in the manner they are asked to. I can understand the 'centralist' bit in a war situation but not in everyday healthy 'democratic' life in any organisation. That just makes for leaders, clone/drones and followers - no good.
dennisr
the acceptable face
which no anarchist has ever done. they only accept fully-fledged revolutionaries. Of course.
dennisr
the acceptable face
An 'authority' that is agreed, accountable and has to be maintained by both parties.
That is not necessarily an 'authoritarian leadership'. In reality it is very much the opposite.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
the thing is, leninism was hammered out in a war situation. It is designed for an underground militarised party. That's why an undemocratic leadership, and its supporters, can find so much chapter and verse to defend their actions. Sounds to me that what makes the SP a better party is the extent to which it has now broken with leninism, since it took the rare move of kicking out a lot of leaders and still holding together.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
usually in a healthy environment, i think that the discussion beforehand should give enough legitimacy to the decision to carry it through even with members who have some misgivings... thankfully on most issues, practical debates within such organisations don't focus around two totally polarised ideas of what to do but in less clearly demarcated shades of grey. when they do though, it is fraught.
i think that some people being excluded in one way or another is simply an inevitable by-product of DC - an unfortunate one, but not the end of the world. and i think that the results in terms of practical efficacy can be worth it if it's pursued properly.
that said, for me it's not an absolute principle which i'd insist on being put in place in every organisation (a shibboleth, as Random might say). i think DC can be used effectively in certain organisations in certain periods.
i think that some people being excluded in one way or another is simply an inevitable by-product of DC - an unfortunate one, but not the end of the world. and i think that the results in terms of practical efficacy can be worth it if it's pursued properly.
that said, for me it's not an absolute principle which i'd insist on being put in place in every organisation (a shibboleth, as Random might say). i think DC can be used effectively in certain organisations in certain periods.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Modern european anarchism deals with the same problem in a differently wrong way - it refuses to recruit people at all. Get it right!
dennisr
the acceptable face
The SP would argue they have broken with the "caricature of leninism" without throwing out the "spirit of leninism"
We all agree that there will be a point when a successful socialist/marxist/communist/anarchist (delete as appropriate) organisation will be under attack or attacked while on the offensive - then some of the experience passed on by the bolsheviks - I guess what is called 'leninism' - could still prove useful (including the advantage of knowing more of their mistakes in retrospect)
dennisr
the acceptable face
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
I think it could be an interesting related question - "what structures would the ideal successful party/organisation have?" But TBH the answer is probably simple and boring and difficult: the organisations that have constant contact with class struggle will flourish. From reading posts on here the healthiest bits of the SWP seem to be the vintage that dates back to the ANL mk1 and industrial struggles at the same time.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Isn't the 'centralism' the main problem? If they were just 'democratic' then you wouldn't have to explain a new concept, and one that actually looks quite authoritarian so is full of traps for people who adopt it.
I do find that the left seems good at this - using words for no real purpose that only a very few people actually understand which then alienate the rest of the population. And calling the democracy we have 'bourgeouis democracy' does also have the hint of 'we are superior to all you plebs so what you really want is democratic centralism'. What we actually want is some form of democracy that works, and indeed is not skewed by funding from rich people big business. No reason to call it anything other than 'democracy' though.
I do find that the left seems good at this - using words for no real purpose that only a very few people actually understand which then alienate the rest of the population. And calling the democracy we have 'bourgeouis democracy' does also have the hint of 'we are superior to all you plebs so what you really want is democratic centralism'. What we actually want is some form of democracy that works, and indeed is not skewed by funding from rich people big business. No reason to call it anything other than 'democracy' though.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
I very much doubt that this will be brought up in the vast majority of union branches that SWP members are in. Most members and stewards will be totally unaware that this has happened or even that the SWP even exists. My union branch probably has more lefties than the vast majority of union branches in the country and I haven't heard anyone mention it in our branch committee or in our stewards meetings or even outside those meetings. I'm sure stewards in left groups are discussing it between themselves but they won't talk to the SWP stewards about it.
Any chance I could get hold of a copy of the Socialist Party consitution Dennis?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
see Taaffe, Peter (whims of)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So he kissed the cow's bum and did the ritual of the blunt knife? Wow, I'm impressed!
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Out of interest articul8 iirc you were a member at one point. if you dont mind me asking why did you leave?
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
The Socialist Party may well operate in a better way than the SWP, I have no real way of knowing. But my dealings of the Socialist Party in the NSSN was very little difference than dealing with the SWP in the Coalition of the Resistance. There did tend to be this incredible defensiveness about any criticisms of the SP, just as with the SWP.
Also doesn't anyone find it odd in the SP that many of your leading figures have been in place for decades? The leader (general secretary?), Taffe has been a leader since the 1950s as far as I know. Surely people being in leadership for that amount of time can't be healthy? Surely someone who is younger has come along who could do the job just as well?
Also doesn't anyone find it odd in the SP that many of your leading figures have been in place for decades? The leader (general secretary?), Taffe has been a leader since the 1950s as far as I know. Surely people being in leadership for that amount of time can't be healthy? Surely someone who is younger has come along who could do the job just as well?
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Surely the constitution of the Socialist Party is on their website? If not, I don't understand why, is it a secret. Aren't members given a copy when they join? I would have thought that would be a pretty fundamental thing to do in terms of democracy?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He's commenting on the fact that the failure to bring about revolution is forever laid at the door of left parties "doing Leninism wrong" (or misreading other pieces of ideology), when the fault almost certainly doesn't lie with it being done wrong or with misreading the meaning of ideology, but that it's still being done at all after 95+ years of not working post the October Revolution.
In my humble opinion.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
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.
I would agree with that. However I think a fair bit of the disillusionment was felt with the collapse of Stalinism and all that entailed. Ie the whole idea of a socialist project' being viable was massively in retreat. Tie that in with the rather risible 'Forward to the Red 90s' guff then it starts to give a bit more of a flavour of how and why disillusionment kicked in. After all as you say the faction fight with the now IMT was bad enough but to a layer the completely inaccurate Red 90s idea added to the sense of disillusionment with the 'idea' of socialism. Added to that you had a 'rejection' of the organisation that coined the phrase and argued the position which was day and daily shown to be wildly inaccurate. The two 'mixed' together certainly helped 'push' some away from both the organisation and active politics for differning lengths of time.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To whittle to-wotsky.
I've just had another quick look on the website and I can't find it. either I'm a total noob or it's a secret.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
As if giving people a political education-irrespective of which leftist variant-is in some way a de facto bad idea?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
My point was directed against the person who said that parties' support for DC simply reflected the views of the members, and is limited only to that.
Similar threads
