Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

For those of you who know Vauxhall well, you'll see that the SWPs week just got even worse.​
_65317169_nicwalker.jpg
 
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.
I bow to your more direct experience, but wrt disengagement from the criminal justice system, have you read the party's official, published response?
It contains some comments that would appear to confirm that your interpretation of Leninist engagement is indeed at odds with that of the SWP:-
"This was an internal matter..."
"... 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 case was discussed at length at a session of our conference, which voted to accept the report and overwhelmingly re-elected the Disputes Committee."
:confused:
http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp
 
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.
Ok I am starting to get tired of saying this, but the rape allegation was not made until September 2012.
 
My god, i had no idea things had got this bad:

At its most extreme, the sycophancy appears cult-like. A number of CC members are big fans of jazz music. Under their leadership over the past few years, the party has organised a number of (mostly loss-making) jazz gigs as fundraising events. Regardless of their own musical tastes, comrades were told they were disloyal if they didn't purchase tickets. This elevates the cultural tastes of the official leadership to a point of political principle; and clearly is not in any way a healthy state of affairs.

Being forced to buy tickets to jazz festivals. *shudders*
 
I bow to your more direct experience, but wrt disengagement from the criminal justice system, have you read the party's official, published response?
It contains some comments that would appear to confirm that your interpretation of Leninist engagement is indeed at odds with that of the SWP:-

:confused:
http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp

Oh, I know I disagree with the SWP, but I think you'd be hard pushed to defend their definition-it's more of a cover for centralised command. Bit like how Stalin invoked Lenin in order to do bad stuff...
 
I bow to your more direct experience, but wrt disengagement from the criminal justice system, have you read the party's official, published response?
It contains some comments that would appear to confirm that your interpretation of Leninist engagement is indeed at odds with that of the SWP:-

:confused:
http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp

Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?

So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.

This isn't instead of a court case, though some of the daft comments in the transcript make it look that way. It was an internal investigation to find out whether he had done things that make him unfit for his position/membership of the party. Think of it as being more like the kind of thing HR departments do when a manager is accused of harassment or summat but the alleged victim doesn't want to take it further.

After thinking it through I don't think they had any choice but to do some kind of investigation. It's the way it was carried out that's a problem.

If you disagree what would you suggest as an alternative course of action?
 
Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?

So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.

This isn't instead of a court case, though some of the daft comments in the transcript make it look that way. It was an internal investigation to find out whether he had done things that make him unfit for his position/membership of the party. Think of it as being more like the kind of thing HR departments do when a manager is accused of harassment or summat but the alleged victim doesn't want to take it further.

After thinking it through I don't think they had any choice but to do some kind of investigation. It's the way it was carried out that's a problem.

If you disagree what would you suggest as an alternative course of action?

Impossible to know for sure of course, but I've heard from a few places that 'W' was persuaded that going to the police would be used against the party. I've even heard that 'W' is still a member of the party from one excitable Swiz kid.
 
I have it on good authority that she is still a member. No way of knowing how true the stuff about them forcing it is though - plenty of people with personal reasons to make that up. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me, not necessarily from the leadership but from some of their more excitable ACAB members.
 
That sort of thing (and this one: "The entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP") is why i'm not that optimistic this new lot calling for a cleaning out of the stables are that different in their political conceptions.

There is this line in the contribution from Emma Rock as well.

Demonstrating that we are an organisation that can take on board its failures and change to remedy them, is the only way I believe we will restore our reputation in the eyes of the class

I hate to break it to her but most of 'the class' doesn't have a clue that the SWP exists let alone that it is crises, and they care even less.
 
Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?

So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.

This isn't instead of a court case, though some of the daft comments in the transcript make it look that way. It was an internal investigation to find out whether he had done things that make him unfit for his position/membership of the party. Think of it as being more like the kind of thing HR departments do when a manager is accused of harassment or summat but the alleged victim doesn't want to take it further.

After thinking it through I don't think they had any choice but to do some kind of investigation. It's the way it was carried out that's a problem.

If you disagree what would you suggest as an alternative course of action?

Glad you've got the patience to write it out like that. That was what I was trying to say and clearly failed.

ETA because I think it's worth underlining: Red Cat - not a complete fucking idiot after all.
 
the other thing about that Jazz malarky was Delta's penchant for having himself up on stage DJing alongside the likes of Miss Dynamite and Pete Doherty at LMHR gigs... lol? like some fucking music afficionado
 
Shows how far these so-called socialists today have come from their pure Marxist/Leninist roots, where jazz is rightly seen as just a decadent import from bourgeois America.

They should be lumped in with New Labour and all the other neo-socialist cunts :mad:.
 
Back
Top Bottom