SWP expulsions and squabbles

[brogdale]

could you possibly repeat the question again?

Exactly. Which undermines the premise of rejecting bourgeois legal systems (which I think was Brogdale's point).

Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?

 

[cesare]

Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?

Taken out and quietly disposed of by the Cheka.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?

A one way cab ride to a farmer's field in Armagh.

 

[dennisr]

Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?

Agreed - its bonkers to think they could.

 

[brogdale]

There's a big difference between claiming not to be a capitalist institution and dealing with serious criminal allegations in-house. If you care to go through all the pre-conference docs for example, you'll see that two members of the SWP were expelled this year because they were convicted of crimes reported to the police. They also have called (rightly IMO) for Assange to be tried in a bourgeois court.

In any case, even if declaring your party isn't a capitalist institution were to make it ok to deal with serious criminal allegations, that still wouldn't be the logical conclusion of democratic centralism; that's the method of decision making, not the decision itself.

I'm assuming that 'Dem Cent' as a method of decision making results in policy/praxis that it the settled will of the majority of the party membership? That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?
The other instances of expulsion appear inconsistent with the party's founding principle of not engaging with the criminal justice system; were they just politically convenient?

 

[Delroy Booth]

a peoples prison....

 

[cesare]

 

[Das Uberdog]

Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?

all they would have done would be to exclude him from membership, having established that he had behaved in a way which couldn't be reconciled with the party's beliefs. i don't think anyone has suggested the SWP were trying to set up an entirely independent 'justice system', including prisons and executions tbf.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Would you rather be imprisoned there, or do hard labour in the siberian iron mines?

 

[dennisr]

I'm assuming that 'Dem Cent' as a method of decision making results in policy/praxis that it the settled will of the majority of the party membership? That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?
The other instances of expulsion appear inconsistent with the party's founding principle of not engaging with the criminal justice system; were they just politically convenient?

Much as I have my differences with SWP members - I don't think it would be right to say that this farce playing out is in any way the will of the majority of their membership!

Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with

 

[cesare]

Much as I have my differences with SWP members - I don't think it would be right to say that this farce playing out is in any way the will of the majority of their membership!

Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with

I suppose it depends on whether rejection of the capitalist bourgeois legal justice system underpins Leninist organisations, really.

 

[brogdale]

all they would have done would be to exclude him from membership, having established that he had behaved in a way which couldn't be reconciled with the party's beliefs. i don't think anyone has suggested the SWP were trying to set up an entirely independent 'justice system', including prisons and executions tbf.

Yep, I'm sure that you're right; that's the only realistic sort of outcome. But it does raise some other questions like...would they then have been happy to leave it at that, or cooperate with any subsequent judicial proceedings? Would they withold evidence that they nay have gathered? And what does this tell us about any future state aapartus that the SWP might effect? Does mere expulsion from the party suggest that the transitional workers state would operate without a judicial system?
Hmmm

 

[dennisr]

I suppose it depends on whether rejection of the capitalist bourgeois legal justice system underpins Leninist organisations, really.

true enough - but we all know that the actions of the present SWPCC at are not based on some golden principle - they need to invent that bit

 

[dennisr]

And what does this tell us

Not a lot really

 

[Red Cat]

That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?

I don't think they did decide to on this basis. There's no evidence to support that. Only one member who spoke from the floor during conference talked about bourgeois justice.

Disclaimer: I do not therefore think that this process was adequate.

 

[brogdale]

Much as I have my differences with SWP members - I don't think it would be right to say that this farce playing out is in any way the will of the majority of their membership!

Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with

Actually, I think the logic of 'Dem Cent' is precisely that the praxis of the CC is the settled will of the membership.

 

[brogdale]

I don't think they did decide to on this basis. There's no evidence to support that. Only one member who spoke from the floor during conference talked about bourgeois justice.

Disclaimer: I do not therefore think that this process was adequate.

Who is 'they'?

 

[dennisr]

Actually, I think the logic of 'Dem Cent' is precisely that the praxis of the CC is the settled will of the membership.

nope - that your logic

 

[brogdale]

nope - that your logic

Like...once a majoritarian decision is made, all members of the party are required to hold that position?
I thought that was the whole Leninist thang....no?

 

[dennisr]

This is quite funny:
Grumpy Old Trot - Hubris
http://grumpyoldtrot.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/hubris

Members of the Sealed Knot who meet to re-enact the battles of the English Civil War in full regalia have one key advantage over the SWP Central Committee – they know they’re just role-playing. The SWP may well pay a high price for the inability of its leaders to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

 

[Red Cat]

Who is 'they'?

They being the CC and the DC. Those held responsible.

 

[brogdale]

They being the CC and the DC. Those held responsible.

I dunno; if this piece from Mr Kimber is genuine, it does look very much like a deliberate party decision based upon its founding principles, and enacted with the will of conference?

This was an internal matter and we had promised full confidentiality to all involved...

....our internal structures seek to promote women to leading roles and deal rigorously with any action by any member that is harmful or disrespectful of women.....

The complainant made the choice not to go to the police, who are notorious for their systemic failure to defend women. Instead she asked for her complaint to be heard by the body within the SWP charged with dealing with disciplinary cases, the Disputes Committee. We respected that choice.

The Disputes Committee is a body of experienced members who had been unanimously elected by the previous conference.

The case was discussed at length at a session of our conference, which voted to accept the report and overwhelmingly re-elected the Disputes Committee.

As far we are concerned, this case is closed.

 

[discokermit]

I'M GLAD K******** HAPPENED.

(Disclaimer: probably)

sharing a board with anarchists needs a bit of give and take. it's probably best not to mention the k word. i did it once but i think i got away with it...

 

[Athos]

Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with

But surely the extent to which a model more readily lends itself to abuse it basis for criticism of it?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

sharing a board with anarchists needs a bit of give and take. it's probably best not to mention the k word. i did it once but i think i got away with it...

cunt

 

[discokermit]

cunt

not get the fawlty towers reference?

 

[Red Cat]

I dunno; if this piece from Mr Kimber is genuine, it does look very much like a deliberate party decision based upon its founding principles, and enacted with the will of conference?

It looks like a decision made by the complainant to not go to the police and then the process justified by the politics to me. I know, knew, one of the DC and I find it hard to believe that she would have seen it as a choice between bourgeois justice and that of the party. But we can only go on what 'they' say in that respect and I'd agree that Kimber's statement makes it less clear (or more, depending on your perspective).

 

[dennisr]

But surely the extent to which a model more readily lends itself to abuse it basis for criticism of it?

que? (thats the only faulty towers reference i know..)

 

[brogdale]

It looks like a decision made by the complainant to not go to the police and then the process justified by the politics to me. I know, knew, one of the DC and I find it hard to believe that she would have seen it as a choice between bourgeois justice and that of the party. But we can only go on what 'they' say in that respect and I'd agree that Kimber's statement makes it less clear (or more, depending on your perspective).

Setting aside the claims made about the wishes of the complainant, I really don't get the idea of the process being "justified by the politics". According to kimber it was justified on the basis of the organisation's founding principles and based upon the legitimacy derived from iis 'Dem Cent' processes.
Any member sitting on the DC would have to have been well aware that they were acting ideologically as a deliberate alternative to the capitalist criminal justice system, and as a court of the putative workers state.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

not get the fawlty towers reference?

What's that Fawlty?