SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Riklet]

a cunning plan to make a quick purging list for future reference CTR?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Labour Party huh? I'm probably not the only one who doubts this. And if you really want the SWP to survive you have lost your political compass. How will the SWP find allies to work with - especially on issues concerning women's rights - with this hanging over them. Only if there is a drastic revolt against what has just happened will they be able to renew their image.

Same Labour party as Andy Newman, here in Swindon. We were both at the count at the last council elections where he failed to win a seat.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Are you sure they're not also lizards bb?

There's no need to invent conspiracies when the folk involved are openly making their play. I know NI says the evidence is meagre but the political faultlines have been there on LT for months. And his less subtle allies aren't even hiding the agenda.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Some very prickly exchanges happening between the LT fans and Counterfire. This from FB:

[Lindsey German] What bad faith?
[Seymour fan] Rebranding oneself as a "feminist" after decades of opposing the idea without any detailed self-criticism; rebranding oneself as a supporter of organisational democracy after years of having opposed its actualisation in the SWP without the slightest self-criticism or reflexivity. How about that for starters?
[Lindsey German] Better than defending a catastrophically worse still regime until the very last moment....Do send me your list of publications that spell out the Marxist position on women's oppression.
[Seymour fan] I am not defending anyone Lindsey German - I support the opposition and Richard Seymour. However, decency if not deontology should dictate that you and John engage in a bout of explicit and searching self-criticism about your roles in creating the bureaucratism in the organisation for many years, before offering commentary or proposing yourselves as an alternative to the dissident members. If such an exercise were carried out in good faith, perhaps you could be taken more seriously in your current forms of appearance...
[Lindsey German] The same regime is in place which got rid of us. In my 37 years in the SWP there has never been a charge like this against any member of the leadership, nor the pathetic defence of it. What you describe as our rebranding has actually been an attempt to build a socialist alternative which learns from the mistakes which all of us have made and some continue to make. If people in the SWP are looking to us it's because of that and we're willing to talk seriously to any of them. On self criticism, maybe a bit from yourself? After all you're still telling people to stay in a discredited organisation, unlike Tom Walker. If you want to debate, cut out the insults and Biblical references and then we can all start behaving like grown ups

Reads like the Seymourites think Rees et al haven't gone far enough in jettisoning the IS worldview. Which does kind of back up what some of us have been saying about the nature of the LT game.

 

[DotCommunist]

I've now read the name lenin so many times on this thread it has ceased to have any meaning

 

[imposs1904]

Some very prickly exchanges happening between the LT fans and Counterfire. This from FB:


[Lindsey German] The same regime is in place which got rid of us. In my 37 years in the SWP there has never been a charge like this against any member of the leadership, nor the pathetic defence of it.

Andy Wilson posted the following contribution on his Facebook yesterday:

I remember when an SWP Central Committee member sexually assaulted one of my friends (this was not a matter of an 'unproven allegation', since the person admitted his guilt at great length to me, putting it down to his heavy drinking). The assault involved an attack on a party member in which he tried to tear her clothes from her. She fought back, and eventually stopped him in his tracks with a kick in the balls (she told me that she said "fuck off, you old hippy"). The woman didn't want to pursue the matter in any way and, not surprisingly, dropped out of the SWP shortly afterwards. As an SWP district organiser I raised this with the CC, asking that the person be disciplined even though there was no complaint as such, but it was explained to me that "this sort of thing happens under capitalism", and nothing could be done about it. Obviously, not being a moron, I didn't think that was in any way an adequate response, but I couldn't think of anything else to do about it. Shortly afterwards I was sacked as an organiser. Then, shortly after that, I was expelled from the SWP 'for life' for wanting to produce a cultural magazine (as it happens, I don't believe they expelled me because of my knowledge of this incident). I perhaps should have done more about this, but at the time - over 20 years ago - I didn't know what else I could do.

I mention all this only because

1) at least of those on the CC at that time remains in position (Callinicos),
2) others on the CC at that time remain prominent figures on the left, albeit not in the SWP (German, Bambery), and...
3) the CC member who told me that such things were inevitable, and justified doing nothing about it, has played a role in recent events, justifying or excusing the actions of Delta using very similar arguments (Sheila McGreggor).

I mention all this because it bears on the mistaken belief some members seem to have that, if the CC suspected that anything untoward really *had* happened in the latest case, they would have dealt with it and would not have taken part in a cover-up. Actually they have a vested interest in covering up such things, and they, as a group, have done so in the past.f

In light of Wilson's post, I wonder if German is being a bit disingenuous in the quote above?

 

[The39thStep]

Andy Wilson posted the following contribution on his Facebook yesterday:



In light of Wilson's post, I wonder if German is being a bit disingenuous in the quote above?

but I couldn't think of anything else to do about it

Sounds like Wilson has his own issues here never mind hos own agenda.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I set up a blogspot over 6 years ago for "the Democratic Platform of the SWP" or summat as a wind up - it included an email address for people to contact, the only people who fell for it were the likes of cliffite off here who entered into a long debate defending the CC and line etc.

I got bored after about two weeks though.

I think on balance this blog is a fake but god knows who is behind it, and because of the ludicrous atmosphere and rules of the SWP it will be very difficult for the real internal opposition to disavow it.

 

[Random]

Anyone know which faction Rebel Warrior is in?

 

[mk12]

I think he can still be found walking aimlessly around North London, looking for that elusive "Dual Power situation".

 

[Delroy Booth]

What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/

Here are some suggestions from Andrew Burgin/Kate Hudson of the November 14th Movement for Left Unity. Engage. I have missed off the preamble on the crisis we face in the interests of brevity.

On what basis can this discussion begin?

Basic principles and common practice:

1. A self-definition as Left; presenting an alternative set of values of equality and justice, not constrained by notions of ‘revolutionary’ left; informed by Marxism but not a pre-condition to engagement.

2. A broadly conceived opposition to capitalism, imperialism, war and racism, understood in a popular sense; defence of the welfare state and advance of redistributive social and economic policies.

3. A democratic, diverse and inclusive political practice; open dialogue and new ways of working; mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis; rejection of brutality and distortion of traditional left structures and their frequent reproduction of the gender domination of capitalist society.

4. International solidarity; working with other left organisations in Europe and internationally to build coordination, strategic links and common work.

5. A recognition that the situation is so urgent that sectarian interests must be abandoned which means compromise and a willingness not to be ‘in the lead’.

Organisational options for discussion:

1. Coalition model: e.g. Syriza – electorally-based coalition uniting over a dozen smaller groups around larger Synaspismos (from communist tradition).

2. Coalition model: e.g. Front de Gauche – electorally-based coalition of a number of groups around larger PCF (French Communist Party) and newer Parti de Gauche, originating in left social democrat split from French Socialist Party (Melenchon). Both Syriza and F de G are similar in many respects to Izquierda Unida in Spain and Bloco de Esquerda in Portugal.

3. Party model: e.g. Die Linke (German Left Party) – development from former ruling East German Socialist Unity Party, via PDS, encompassing WASG (left social democrats – Lafontaine) and revolutionary left groups; political differences articulated through Platforms.

Issues:

1. The political future for the left in Britain cannot be resolved by sticking together existing left groups; there are newly emerging and evolving groupings and individuals that want to be part of the process.

2. The lack of serious electoral possibility owing to ‘first past the post’ system means that an electoral coalition would be putting the cart before the horse.

3. No single party exists that could play the role of a PDS or Synaspismos in creating a new organisation or coalition.

4. How to simultaneously develop individual participation as well as organisational participation?

Steps for facilitating this discussion:

1. Setting up a website to pose such a united left option; publishing and commissioning broadly representative articles and debate pieces to explore willingness to take a new approach.

2. Organising series of discussion meetings on key topics, looking for common ground, such as: attitude towards Labour Party and Labour left; relationship with trade unions; relationship with social movements and anti-cuts groups; posing alternative economic policies; addressing gender and race balance in process; relations with European organisations. To publish the discussion at these meetings.

3. Convention to take further steps towards establishing a Left organisation.
Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin

 

[articul8]

Yes. Wouldn't it have been announced on LT if it was a real thing?

what's LT? (edit -sorry Lenin's Tomb - answering my own questions now)

 

[brogdale]

What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/

At a time when the electoral right is splitting, I'm delighted to see that these proposals explicitly rule out an electoral coalition of the left.

 

[mk12]

Lenin's Tomb

 

[Red Cat]

I hate to burst your bubble of fond memories of Julie Waterson, but after Martin Smith told conference in 2011 a pack of self serving lies about a consensual affair that had gone wrong, and was in the middle of his undeserved standing ovation, she went up to the front and kissed him on the cheek.

Can you tell me how this came about? Why was he speaking about it at conference? I thought an informal complaint had been made to the CC at this point. Have I missed something?

 

[Random]

What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/

It's an interesting discussion to have, but based on the principles posted there it's almost certain to result in yet another tiny group once again positioning itself as a unity grouping.

Steps for facilitating this discussion:

1. Setting up a website to pose such a united left option; publishing and commissioning broadly representative articles and debate pieces to explore willingness to take a new approach.

2. Organising series of discussion meetings on key topics, looking for common ground, such as: attitude towards Labour Party and Labour left; relationship with trade unions; relationship with social movements and anti-cuts groups; posing alternative economic policies; addressing gender and race balance in process; relations with European organisations. To publish the discussion at these meetings.

3. Convention to take further steps towards establishing a Left organisation.
Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin

Like I keep on saying, class struggle has to come first. A unity group that exists for its own sake is not going to convince many people that it is useful to their lives. It will simply be dipping into the ever-shrinking pool of left activists.

Edit: some sort of clear-headed organising has to happen at the same time as the activity, though, otherwise you just end up with groupings that only last as long as the wave of energy motivates people. But look at UKUncut for an example of how even a bad campaign group is still more successful than various careful lefty attempts to organise a new political grouping.

 

[electric.avenue]

It's even made it to the Swindon Advertiser!

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...og_sparks_crisis_in_Socialist_Workers__Party/

 

[butchersapron]

Can you tell me how this came about? Why was he speaking about it at conference? I thought an informal complaint had been made to the CC at this point. Have I missed something?

The woman who made the rape accusation made an accusation of sexual harassment against the same person in 2010. The CC decided that it was fit to oversee this complaint at this point (though she was given the option of going to DC) and passed a resolution that cleared him of it (apparently on the basis of asking him if he had done it). They made a statement about it at the 2011 conference. Smith spoke about it and was given a standing ovation.

 

[Red Cat]

The woman who made the rape accusation made an accusation of sexual harassment against the same person in 2010. The CC decided that it was fit to oversee this complaint at this point (though she was given the option of going to DC) and passed a resolution that cleared him of it (apparently on the basis of asking him if he had done it). They made a statement about it at the 2011 conference. Smith spoke about it and was given a standing ovation.

It was because it didn't go to the DC that I thought it was 'informal' or perhaps I read that word earlier in the thread and it stuck. I couldn't make the link between an informal complaint and Smith talking about it at conference. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[danny la rouge]

What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/

It's well-meaning, but missing some important ingredients. Where is the mention of class? What would be the role of communities? How would this organisation support community autonomy? Or is it just going to be another solution imposed from the top?

And this: "looking for common ground, such as: attitude towards Labour Party". If the Labour Party is still not seen for what it is, to the extent that there still needs to be a "search for attitude" towards it, then this is going nowhere.

I wish them well, though. Maybe it'll be a force for good.

 

[butchersapron]

The thing is, i reckon loads of people are more than willing to put aside past differences and grievances in the name of common defence, whether in limited united front or something similar, once the issues that have prevented them developing in the past have been dealt with - they haven't been though, and they won't be by people either ignoring or forcing themselves to forget them - the issues of internal democracy, attempts to dominate, tradition squabbling, certain groups or people treating it as their personal plaything and so on can not be got rid of by just willing them away in a pub beforehand. I agree with Ian that people outside of the normal left-channels should get involved and try to impose themselves so all that shit doesn't happen (i argued the same as regards anarchist engagement with the STWC and ended up practically on my own though).

 

[Random]

And this: "looking for common ground, such as: attitude towards Labour Party". If the Labour Party is still not seen for what it is, to the extent that there still needs to be a "search for attitude" towards it, then this is going nowhere.

Yes, I think any new left group that is sentimental about the LP is going to be hobbled from the start. But I also can't stand the idea of all the endless meetings that would be needed to agree a line on the LP.

So I think the best way would be for the new grouping to be grounded in practical pro-working class activity that goes beyond what Labour wants, that involves social change that the LP cannot accommodate. Thenthere would be little risk in pro-Labour people being involved. The reverse, imo. The activity will create a move away from Labour.

 

[Random]

(i argued the same as regards anarchist engagement with the STWC and ended up practically on my own though).

What did you argue? I was one of the very few anarchist involved with STWC in an organised way. Lots of Manchester anarchoes I knew just treated the SWP/MAB like kryptonite.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, I think any new left group that is sentimental about the LP is going to be hobbled from the start. But I also can't stand the idea of all the endless meetings that would be needed to agree a line on the LP.

So I think the best way would be for the new grouping to be grounded in practical pro-working class activity that goes beyond what Labour wants, that involves social change that the LP cannot accommodate. Thenthere would be little risk in pro-Labour people being involved. The reverse, imo. The activity will create a move away from Labour.

Yes, not an organisation cobbled together from the usual elements by specialists but one that grew out of a common activity.

 

[butchersapron]

What did you argue? I was one of the very few anarchist involved with STWC in an organised way. Lots of Manchester anarchoes I knew just treated the SWP/MAB like kryptonite.

For local anarchist involvement and input in order to challenge the stitch-ups, the lifelessness the timidity and so on - but once the first thing went against them they stormed off.

 

[emanymton]

Andy Wilson posted the following contribution on his Facebook yesterday:



In light of Wilson's post, I wonder if German is being a bit disingenuous in the quote above?

I would guess the CC member involved here was Harman there are quite a number of stories about him on the SU site. I have no idea if there is any truth to them but the number of them suggests something.

 

[Random]

For local anarchist involvement and input in order to challenge the stitch-ups, the lifelessness the timidity and so on - but once the first thing went against them they stormed off.

That was my line!

It was a very odd sight to see loads of anarchists, who'd rather lock on and get arrested than eat their dinner, shying away from enduring a few meetings and speaking their mind to all the SWP hacks. Only the CND "anarchists" were with me, and they have a long history of accommodating leninists and didn't rock the boat.

 

[Oisin123]

What did you argue? I was one of the very few anarchist involved with STWC in an organised way. Lots of Manchester anarchoes I knew just treated the SWP/MAB like kryptonite.

Arrg. The K - word.

 

[Random]

If the Argentines are to get the Falklands then the Swedes should at least get Krondstadt back

 

[SpackleFrog]

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?

No, I'm saying SPECIFICALLY that it's got nothing to do with setting up a parallel legal system or what has taken place inside the SWP. For dem cent to work the membership must know what they are discussing and voting on, and they must be able to attend conference (hard when dissenters are expelled for thinking about dissent. This issue has rumbled on for 2 years but it's only in the last few weeks that most people have found out that this was an allegation of rape as opposed to an affair that got a bit messy. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WERE TOLD. All Dem Cent requires is wide ranging democratic discussion at branch, regional and national level, in order to arrive at decisions that members are then expected to abide by, but most swp members knew nothing of this. Whether you think Leninism by definition means that you must disengage from the criminal justice system is up for debate, but personally I would say not. Lenin famously said that revolutionaries should work within bourgeois parliaments, however corrupt, for as long as they were recognised as legitimate by the vast majority of the working class. I would apply exactly the same attitude to the bourgeois justice system, as a Leninist. Many SWP members would perhaps argue that I'm not a Leninist, as it goes, but they're just fucking wrong, so there.

Re the other expulsions: I don't think these were politically convenient, that's just the norm. If memory serves, the crimes were possession and GBH respectively. Like I say, I don't think there's any suggestion that this is the normal way that the SWP would deal with criminal allegations.