SWP expulsions and squabbles

[One_Stop_Shop]

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

I think some people are more likely to do it than others because of their psychological make up, but for sure I think it can affect anyone to one degree or another. I think that if you keep a life going independent of a political organisation that must help a lot.

 

[frogwoman]

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.

i think it will simply collapse tbh

 

[Delroy Booth]

there is NO LIFE outside the party!

Outside the Party there is no salvation

 

[brogdale]

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

Arguing is one thing, but telling someone to give up sounds a little harsh. I think it is valuable to examine the fundamental flaw of DC, don't you?

The degree of control, input, influence that the SWP member 'enjoys' wrt to the official agenda of the Central Committee looks to me very similar to that enjoyed by workers wrt to corporate decision making.

If you think that's wrong it might be more productive for you to explain exactly what influnence as a SWP member you had on the CC agenda.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

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

I agree but I think it becomes quite complicated in terms of people's reasons for staying round and I think material reasons do have a significant factor in some cases.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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

No, my suspicion is that it's probably capitalism or nothing. I do think its overthrow, if possible at all, would require centralised organisation that anarchists wouldn't like but that doesn't necessarily mean Leninism. I also completely disagree with the implication that doing the same thing always returns the same results but I don't think this thread is really the place for it.

There are currently 99,467,859,748 threads on this board where we've discussed the pros and cons of Leninism and anarchism so I suggest we leave it on this thread so we can talk about the shitstorm in the SWP.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

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!

I agree to some extent but you can't write off psychological and material interests (not money but ego, social life etc). If this isn't the case why do the leaderships of these groups stay unchanging? Why was Cliff there for decades, why has Taffe been the leader for 50 years? Do they really, in all those years, see no-one coming through who would do as good a job as them, and then have a far more healthy situation where you don't have the same people in place year after year and decade after decade.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

i think it will simply collapse tbh

But if it collapsed they would all lose their jobs, that must come in to their thinking to some degree.

 

[Athos]

No, my suspicion is that it's probably capitalism or nothing. I do think its overthrow, if possible at all, would require centralised organisation that anarchists wouldn't like but that doesn't necessarily mean Leninism. I also completely disagree with the implication that doing the same thing always returns the same results but I don't think this thread is really the place for it.

There are currently 99,467,859,748 threads on this board where we've discussed the pros and cons of Leninism and anarchism so I suggest we leave it on this thread so we can talk about the shitstorm in the SWP.

All good points.

 

[dennisr]

the fundamental flaw of DC

You are not arguing about any 'fundamental flaw' you are simply making shit up to reinforce your own preconceptions. The problem is these artificial leaps of thought/faith that you offer are not linked in practice.

Imposing one's preconceptions over lived practice is what you are doing - the same as those you are attempting to critisise. Abstract theories are no substitute for lived practice.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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.

I just don't buy it sorry. These people have given most of their adult lives to their political ideas (whatever you think of those ideas). They could almost all have easier, more relaxed and financially more comfortable lives if they didn't eat and drink marxist politics and activism. In material terms the membership would be doing them all a favour by forcing them to 'spend more time with their family'.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Arguing is one thing, but telling someone to give up sounds a little harsh. I think it is valuable to examine the fundamental flaw of DC, don't you?

Examine perceived flaws of DC by all means. You don't need to start talking like Rik Mayall and calling everyone capitalists to do that.

The degree of control, input, influence that the SWP member 'enjoys' wrt to the official agenda of the Central Committee looks to me very similar to that enjoyed by workers wrt to corporate decision making.

That's just silly.

If you think that's wrong it might be more productive for you to explain exactly what influnence as a SWP member you had on the CC agenda.

And this is why. I had a vote at conference. Now, on its own that doesn't do much to make a difference unless others want to as well. But then that's the same in any organisation. But here's the big difference - you depend on your job to make a living. If you leave you lose your wage. I've tolerated all kinds of shit from bosses that I'd never put up with from a voluntary organisation like the SWP or any other party - most of us have. But when I disagreed with the SWP I left and lost nothing in doing so.

And of course the flip side of that is the question of how much influence the CC has on the local SWP branch agenda. It's far from absolute and far weaker than the control the boss has over the worker - precisely because it depends on consent.

These, like it or not, are very real differences.

 

[love detective]

In material terms the membership would be doing them all a favour by forcing them to 'spend more time with their family'.

Not if your John Rees they wouldn't

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I just don't buy it sorry. These people have given most of their adult lives to their political ideas (whatever you think of those ideas). They could almost all have easier, more relaxed and financially more comfortable lives if they didn't eat and drink marxist politics and activism. In material terms the membership would be doing them all a favour by forcing them to 'spend more time with their family'.

I can see what you are saying but if your social left, ego and even a big chunk of the point of your existance is all wrapped up in this, then I don't think it would be easy and I think it will impact psychologically, indeed I can't see how it couldn't. That's why you get people leaving describing it as being like a break up and talking about it in such emotional terms.

Also why do leaders such as Cliff, Callinicos, Taffe etc all think it's ok that they stay in place for not just years, but decades? Is no-one else at all as good as them?

 

[brogdale]

You are not arguing about any 'fundamental flaw' you are simply making shit up to reinforce your own preconceptions. The problem is these artificial leaps of thought/faith that you offer are not linked in practice.

Imposing one's preconceptions over lived practice is what you are doing - the same as those you are attempting to critisise. Abstract theories are no substitute for lived practice.

Precisely why I invited an account of persoanl experience from someone who had been a member. I've never been a member myself, but I don't think that should mean that any external criticism of structure or process should be written off as abstract theory.

 

[frogwoman]

I can see what you are saying but if your social left, ego and even a big chunk of the point of your existance is all wrapped up in this, then I don't think it would be easy and I think it will impact psychologically, indeed I can't see how it couldn't. That's why you get people leaving describing it as being like a break up and talking about it in such emotional terms.

Also why do leaders such as Cliff, Callinicos, Taffe etc all think it's ok that they stay in place for not just years, but decades? Is no-one else at all as good as them?

think it may be the case that the members think nobody's as good as them from the CC

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Not if your John Rees they wouldn't

You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.

 

[Belushi]

Big fish never want to stop being big fish, however small the pond.

 

[cesare]

You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.

"Proper political discussion" appears to equal political conversation around points that you agree with.

 

[Belushi]

You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.

They're full of people who were radical for ten minutes in their youth, it would be a whole different kettle of fish trying to start a new career after decades as a leading member of a tiny political party.

 

[frogwoman]

there are mechanisms for replacing the cc in a democratic centralist party though. there are alternative slates put forward. it may not be very easy (which is why ive said i think it should be changed). however you can still do it it may be the case that people are content enough with the leadership not to want to rock the boat (or at least not see any reason why it should be changed immediately)

 

[SpineyNorman]

I can see what you are saying but if your social left, ego and even a big chunk of the point of your existance is all wrapped up in this, then I don't think it would be easy and I think it will impact psychologically, indeed I can't see how it couldn't. That's why you get people leaving describing it as being like a break up and talking about it in such emotional terms.

Also why do leaders such as Cliff, Callinicos, Taffe etc all think it's ok that they stay in place for not just years, but decades? Is no-one else at all as good as them?

In my experience, though, it's the ones in the more 'powerful' positions who have the most to lose in leaving, not the ordinary members.

 

[love detective]

You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.

it was a joke about who his 'family' is

 

[brogdale]

Examine perceived flaws of DC by all means. You don't need to start talking like Rik Mayall and calling everyone capitalists to do that.



That's just silly.



And this is why. I had a vote at conference. Now, on its own that doesn't do much to make a difference unless others want to as well. But then that's the same in any organisation. But here's the big difference - you depend on your job to make a living. If you leave you lose your wage. I've tolerated all kinds of shit from bosses that I'd never put up with from a voluntary organisation like the SWP or any other party - most of us have. But when I disagreed with the SWP I left and lost nothing in doing so.

And of course the flip side of that is the question of how much influence the CC has on the local SWP branch agenda. It's far from absolute and far weaker than the control the boss has over the worker - precisely because it depends on consent.

These, like it or not, are very real differences.

Yes, many (labour) organisations undertake voting at conference but there is a crucial distinction between those founded upon democratic principles of mandated delgation to decide upon competing branch resolutions and those in which the bulk resolutions are determined by the self-perpetuating oligrachy of leaders on the CC. Is not also the case that the outgoing CC nominate the candidates for the incoming committee?

 

[Das Uberdog]

brogdale's arguments, from their very first post in this thread (where he/she believed that the very hypothetical premise of the SWP's internal investigation represented an attempt to replace the entire judiciary and justice system in toto) seem to be based in a common anarchist misunderstanding; that for most socialists the organisations one builds to further their political aims aren't a microcosm of the society we wish to see in the future, and them replicating 'utopian' ambitions in their own structures isn't anywhere near as important as whether or not they make an effective strategical contribution to 'the cause'.

a lot of the different anarchist groupings today operate by simply seeking to 'build communism' in their own little space, a squatted social centre, their internal processes etc. that is fundamentally not what the SWP or most socialists are trying to do. this is why you can sometimes get the disconnect, where things like the 'centralism' in democratic centralism can be commanded in a voluntary organisation where they wouldn't be demanded in, say, a Soviet.

for the SWP (and most other socialist orgs) their self-defined role is to influence working class organisations (such as Soviets) not to be those organisations.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, many (labour) organisations undertake voting at conference but there is a crucial distinction between those founded upon democratic principles of mandated delgation to decide upon competing branch resolutions and those in which the bulk resolutions are determined by the self-perpetuating oligrachy of leaders on the CC. Is not also the case that the outgoing CC nominate the candidates for the incoming committee?

The CC propose a slate. Anyone else can propose a slate too if they do wish. Anyone can propose a resolution. And simply reasserting the claim that they're an oligarchy doesn't make it so.

 

[emanymton]

Not if your John Rees they wouldn't

They certainly wouldn't be doing his family any favours.

 

[brogdale]

Anyone else can propose a slate too if they do wish. Anyone can propose a resolution.

Do they?
And what happens to them if they do?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

think it may be the case that the members think nobody's as good as them from the CC

Surely that is a problem. No-one could be as good in 50 years of Taffe being there? There has to have been some very talented people in the SP in that time, and it can't be right having someone as the leadership for all that time.

 

[frogwoman]

Do they?
And what happens to them if they do?

nothing.