SWP expulsions and squabbles

[The39thStep]

Seymour's latest plea to the members: http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/more-dispatches-from-real-world.html

"we are rapidly becoming toxic"

Toxic must be the most overused phrase of the past two years.

 

[Athos]

I am afraid that isn't limited to democratic centralism, look at the nuttier anarchist/animal libbers scene

A fair point. But, isn't there a difference between an ideology in which the concentration of power is guiding principle, and one in which such concentration isn't widely regarded as legitimate, albeit that, in practice, it occurs more often than it should?

 

[SpineyNorman]

If the SWP, or any other party or group, is paying for someone's labour then of course that is part of "capitalist relations", how can it not be?

That makes a lot more sense but brogdale was talking about the relationship between the membership and the CC, whereas this is about the relationship between fulltimers (some of whom are on the CC) and the party as a whole.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Whether or not the SWP match that earlier description is one thing. But rule by a small group of powerful people is an oligarchy. There are degrees. It is arguable that the USA is ssomething of an oligarchy, til ex

Yes, but members of the SWP can leave - the CC really isn't that powerful. The whole reason why they're in this mess is, at least partly, down to them overstretching themselves. To apply that term to the SWP's CC you'd have to redefine it.

 

[Athos]

Not at all. A workers state would have state capitalist relations of production for a period. That's part of the transition.

Yeah, that's the way it usually pans out.

 

[Athos]

Which is something I wouldn't worry about too much if I were you, not with the SWP (or any other British left group).

But let's not let that put us off doing the same things again and again in the hope of different results!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Yeah, that's the way it usually pans out.

Not sure 'usually' works with a statistical sample of one.

 

[SpineyNorman]

But let's not let that put us off doing the same things again and again in the hope of different results!

The same result would be an improvement on what's been managed so far tbh

 

[The39thStep]

A fair point. But, isn't there a difference between an ideology in which the concentration of power is guiding principle, and one in which such concentration isn't widely regarded as legitimate, albeit that, in practice, it occurs more often than it should?

Not in terms of what we were discussing.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

You seem to be having a knee jerk reaction to being told that capitalist relations exist in the SWP. But theyeexist, whether you like it or not. This isn't the ame as saying that the SWP are a party that campaigns in favour of capitalist relations, although the two issues are related.

Have no objection to the brilliant observation that wage labour exists in the swp like any other org that employs people in a capitalist society. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.

 

[Random]

Yes, but members of the SWP can leave - the CC really isn't that powerful. The whole reason why they're in this mess is, at least partly, down to them overstretching themselves. To apply that term to the SWP's CC you'd have to redefine it.

a weak oligarchy is still an oligarchy.

 

[Athos]

Not in terms of what we were discussing.

You don't think the ideological significance of a leadership is central to the issue of members' defence of the actions of leaders?

 

[Athos]

Not sure 'usually' works with a statistical sample of one.

It was slightly tounge-in-cheek.

 

[Random]

. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.

Not every organisation employs paid staff. Hence the old syndicalist objection to union full timers. And on yr second point, the existence and reproduction of the SWP depends partly on the labour of the group's paid staff. No, not an amazing or new observation, only worth making because you seem to be denying it

 

[Athos]

The same result would be an improvement on what's been managed so far tbh

It's a false dichotomy, though.

 

[Red Cat]

While DB might not have used the best example I think he has a point. It is scary the way certain people can defend almost anything given the right circumstances. I think that is a real challenge for democratic centralism.

Is it only certain people or is at all of us in certain circumstances?

 

[SpineyNorman]

a weak oligarchy is still an oligarchy.

It's not even a weak oligarchy though is it? They have to be elected once a year. Not sure this is a particularly productive line of debate though.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's a false dichotomy, though.

What is?

 

[brogdale]

Have no objection to the brilliant observation that wage labour exists in the swp like any other org that employs people in a capitalist society. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.

But the observation was an analogy between worker/capitalist power relations and those experienced by rank & file members of Leninist (DC) organisations and their leadership, so literal examination of inevitable capitalist forms in the organisation is to tilt at windmills.

 

[SpineyNorman]

link to anarachist FAQ coming in 5,4,3...

 

[SpineyNorman]

But the observation was an analogy between worker/capitalist power relations and those experienced by rank & file members of Leninist (DC) organisations and their leadership, so literal examination of inevitable capitalist forms in the organisation is to tilt at windmills.

It wasn't an analogy - you said it was the same. And you were talking bollocks. Just give it up.

 

[cesare]

link to anarachist FAQ coming in 5,4,3...

Well, where is it then?

 

[The39thStep]

You don't think the ideological significance of a leadership is central to the issue of members' defence of the actions of leaders?

nope

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Yes, but members of the SWP can leave - the CC really isn't that powerful. The whole reason why they're in this mess is, at least partly, down to them overstretching themselves. To apply that term to the SWP's CC you'd have to redefine it.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think 39th step makes a good point in terms of "life after the party". A lot of members end up having their whole social life, and even their whole purpose in life, wrapped up in their membership. I've heard people describing leaving the SWP or SP (or whoever) as like breaking up with someone. I've also seen people marginalise their pre-existing social life more and more after they join and then their life becomes absorbed into the organisation. In those circumstances I imagine leaving is quite difficult on a psychological level.

 

[Athos]

nope

Ok.

 

[frogwoman]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think 39th step makes a good point in terms of "life after the party". A lot of members end up having their whole social life, and even their whole purpose in life, wrapped up in their membership. I've heard people describing leaving the SWP or SP (or whoever) as like breaking up with someone. I've also seen people marginalise their pre-existing social life more and more after they join and then their life becomes absorbed into the organisation. In those circumstances I imagine leaving is quite difficult on a psychological level.

there is NO LIFE outside the party!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Not every organisation employs paid staff. Hence the old syndicalist objection to union full timers. And on yr second point, the existence and reproduction of the SWP depends partly on the labour of the group's paid staff. No, not an amazing or new observation, only worth making because you seem to be denying it

Well you chopped off my first sentence where I made it clear I meant orgs that did employ paid staff. There is of course an inherent danger of conservatism in any org that has something to lose and that's much more true of TUs than it is of a party like the swp. Which is part of the explanation for the behavious of TU bureaucrats. The wage labour exists, no dispute there. The point is whether anyone seriously believes the maintenance of that setup is what explains any of the problems in the swp. Personally I don't think it does, structures and ideas are much more important here than material interests. I've rarely known a fulltimer in the swp who wouldn't be much better off getting a job outside the party!

 

[Athos]

What is?

I thought your remark implied that it was a Leninism or nothing.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think 39th step makes a good point in terms of "life after the party". A lot of members end up having their whole social life, and even their whole purpose in life, wrapped up in their membership. I've heard people describing leaving the SWP or SP (or whoever) as like breaking up with someone. I've also seen people marginalise their pre-existing social life more and more after they join and then their life becomes absorbed into the organisation. In those circumstances I imagine leaving is quite difficult on a psychological level.

Yes but all those things imply a degree of consent that's simply not necessary for the worker/boss relationship.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Have no objection to the brilliant observation that wage labour exists in the swp like any other org that employs people in a capitalist society. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.

They are dependent to some extent, surely? If all the members left who would pay the big majority of the CCs wages? I agree with you that you have to be careful not to read too much in to that, and the idea that they are a ruling class!!! But I think it could have some impact, especially as an organisation gets ever more removed from the working class, works in a bubble but sees itself as the vanguard.