SWP: Mother of all splits looms?

[Nigel Irritable]

Hang on a second BA. I know that discussion with SWPers can lead even the most reasonable amongst us to churn out snide one liners, but he's not asking an unreasonable basic question.

How do you think that revolutionaries, or socialists, or whoever else you think needs to organise, should actually do so? I'm a bit curious about your views on that because, while I'm familiar with Platformist ideas and also with consensusy anarchoid gibberish, I'm not actually sure what you are advocating.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Is it so you can argue all organisation is the same?

no

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not advocating anything right now. I'm offering a negative view on democratic centralism as practiced across the board. That doesn't stand or rely on whatever view of internal organisation any group that i'm a member of holds.

 

[butchersapron]

no

So what other forms of organisation are there?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm not advocating anything right now. I'm offering a negative view on democratic centralism as practiced across the board. That doesn't stand or rely on whatever view of internal organisation any group that i'm a member of holds.

No, I agree, it doesn't.

I'm just curious.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

1. Agreement to a set of core statements regarding both what is desired for the future and what is seen to stand in the way of its achievement; agreement with these statements to be one part of qualification for membership, the other to be agreement with the following organisational arrangements.

2. Autonomy for branches to purse these aims in the light of the analysis; branches to be organised geographical or industrially.

3. Annual delegate conference to share the branch experiences of the past year, and review the organisation's core statements, analysis and organisation.

4. Elected admistrative committee to look after the business of running the organisation according to the arrangements agreed by the delegate conference between conferences; to include the active promotion of dialogue between branches between conferneces.

It may not be perfect but it's an alternative to dc and it took me all of a couple of minutes to come up with. The point being that it isn't hard to come up with alternatives to dc.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The problem being that an 'admistrative committee' isn't a political leadership able to swing an organisation behind initiatives it deems worthwhile. That's one of the reasons for a dc party and no alternative form of org I've ever heard discussed on the left even begins to theorise how to build that sort of leadership into it's structures.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The problem being that an 'admistrative committee' isn't a political leadership able to swing an organisation behind initiatives it deems worthwhile. That's one of the reasons for a dc party and no alternative form of org I've ever heard discussed on the left even begins to theorise how to build that sort of leadership into it's structures.

Given the success of dc parties in the uk, you might want to re-examine the here and now real world effectiveness of idea of a political leadrship constituted in an executive committee which tries to swing an organisation behind initiatives it deems worthwhile. Perhaps the leadership should be constituted in the most participatory and democratic bodies of the organisation: e.g. the delegate conference, the branch meeting?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

No, I agree, it doesn't.

I'm just curious.

So am I. I wonder why Napoleon is so frightened?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Hocus Eye.
Got to apologise, I couldn't understand why you were having a go at me about factions. This was because I didn't understand the context of Nigel's comments about factions. I didn't realise we were talking about factions in the sense of the SW constitution. In that sense you are absolutely correct, there are no factions at the moment in SW.
Nigel.
Whilst I have conceded, I think you have a legitimate question to ask about the issue of factions in the SW constitution, I do understand what it has to do with this thread. How can a faction in SW have a place on the central committee, when there is no faction? You do accept that there is no factions in the SW constitutional definition of to term?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Do you honestly think that there's no possible alternatives to democratic centalism? That's a question that wants an answer btw.

how can I know, when you are too frightened to explain what your alternative is?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

how can I know, when you are too frightened to explain what your alternative is?

You can know if alternatives are possible without knowing what BA's prefered options are; unless you see him as the only reliable source of ideas on the subject....which would be very odd?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

I don't see any alternative to DC. What's most important is how it is implemented, the essential principle being that the whole membership has the maximum opportunity to discuss and decide on the organisation's politics but that once a decision is made it constitutes the public face of the organisation until the next time decision making can be effected.

And there should be different levels of decision-making with national (if it's a world organisation) local, regional decisions being made at the same time that are in keeping with the democratically decided principles of the organisation.

To me it'd be pointless joining an organisation where people just did what they wanted all the time. You either agree with the organisation's fundamentals or you try to change them while going along with the democratically arrived-at decision, or you leave

 

[TremulousTetra]

Given the success of dc parties in the uk, you might want to re-examine the here and now real world effectiveness of idea of a political leadrship constituted in an executive committee which tries to swing an organisation behind initiatives it deems worthwhile. Perhaps the leadership should be constituted in the most participatory and democratic bodies of the organisation: e.g. the delegate conference, the branch meeting?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Given the success of the alternatives to democratic centralism in the UK, you might want to re-examine the here and now real world effectiveness of those alternatives?

It's not really a convincing argument is it? What we really need is convincing model's. What I need you to do is say "Hey look at this organization. This is a national body, that can move over national and local issues, that is in embryo an organisation that at time of social revolution can unite those who want to overthrow capitalism." Do you have any examples in the UK to point to?

 

[Das Uberdog]

1. Agreement to a set of core statements regarding both what is desired for the future and what is seen to stand in the way of its achievement; agreement with these statements to be one part of qualification for membership, the other to be agreement with the following organisational arrangements.

2. Autonomy for branches to purse these aims in the light of the analysis; branches to be organised geographical or industrially.

3. Annual delegate conference to share the branch experiences of the past year, and review the organisation's core statements, analysis and organisation.

4. Elected admistrative committee to look after the business of running the organisation according to the arrangements agreed by the delegate conference between conferences; to include the active promotion of dialogue between branches between conferneces.

It may not be perfect but it's an alternative to dc and it took me all of a couple of minutes to come up with. The point being that it isn't hard to come up with alternatives to dc.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

That's not an alternative to Democratic Centralism. An organisation without it can't demand unity of action - end of debate. If that's something you're willing to sacrifice, then go you. Meanwhilst, all the rest of us are happy, when signing up to a voluntary organisation, in the understanding that it is in the greater interest of our movement that we toe the officially produced line rather than just do what the frick we want when we want to do it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You can know if alternatives are possible without knowing what BA's prefered options are; unless you see him as the only reliable source of ideas on the subject....which would be very odd?

Louis MacNeice

look at the threads smart arse, I know you find it difficult to compute irony.

He's always quick to have a go, but never expresses an alternative. Constructive criticism for a change, would just be interesting, as Nigel says.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's not an alternative to Democratic Centralism. An organisation without it can't demand unity of action - end of debate. If that's something you're willing to sacrifice, then go you. Meanwhilst, all the rest of us are happy, when signing up to a voluntary organisation, in the understanding that it is in the greater interest of our movement that we toe the officially produced line rather than just do what the frick we want when we want to do it.

just doing what the frick you want, might be a viable alternative, but we would never know from the board, because they never want to discuss the alternatives. Given the records of the alternatives in the UK so far, I can't say I'm surprised. But perhaps I'm ignorant of good examples.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

That's not an alternative to Democratic Centralism. An organisation without it can't demand unity of action - end of debate. If that's something you're willing to sacrifice, then go you. Meanwhilst, all the rest of us are happy, when signing up to a voluntary organisation, in the understanding that it is in the greater interest of our movement that we toe the officially produced line rather than just do what the frick we want when we want to do it.

The 'all the rest of us' comment just shows how limited your thinking is; like a man standing in the middle of a library looking through a waste paper bin for answers.

The other parts of your post just show that either you haven't read or understood what I wrote; of course this might just be the reuslt of whaat I've described above.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

look at the threads smart arse, I know you find it difficult to compute irony.

He's always quick to have a go, but never expresses an alternative. Constructive criticism for a change, would just be interesting, as Nigel says.

Trying to excuse dishonesty as irony isn't very appealing.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

just doing what the frick you want, might be a viable alternative, but we would never know from the board, because they never want to discuss the alternatives. Given the records of the alternatives in the UK so far, I can't say I'm surprised. But perhaps I'm ignorant of good examples.

No one has advocated 'doing what the frick you want', but feel free to carry on ducking the real issues; in this particular case the failure of democratic centralism to deliver the goods.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

the failure of democratic centralism to deliver the goods.

I can think of failures to apply DC resulting in not delivering the good but not a failure of DC as such. Please enlighten me on these occurrences

 

[TremulousTetra]

No one has advocated 'doing what the frick you want', but feel free to carry on ducking the real issues; in this particular case the failure of democratic centralism to deliver the goods.

Louis MacNeice

I accept for the sake of argument your premis that democratic centralism has failed to deliver the goods, happy? Now please point me to an example of an alternative that has delivered the goods.

PS. Edited to ad.
The anarchist philosophy is 'doing what the frick you want', isn't it? I know it is crude to render it down to one line sentences like that, but it is in a nutshell Napoleon's alternative two democratic centralism, isn't it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Trying to excuse dishonesty as irony isn't very appealing.

Louis MacNeice

What dishonesty? I never tell a lie.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The 'all the rest of us' comment just shows how limited your thinking is; like a man standing in the middle of a library looking through a waste paper bin for answers.

The other parts of your post just show that either you haven't read or understood what I wrote; of course this might just be the reuslt of whaat I've described above.

Louis MacNeice

he is essentially right though isn't he? You don't seem to be able to accept it's good thing to have different approaches to the same problem?

I welcome anarchism, and all the other alternative methods of organization two democratic centralism, and wish them every success. Why can't you welcome democratic centralism, and wish it every success?

 

[JimW]

Why can't you welcome democratic centralism, and wish it every success?

I believe it cripples the class politically and paves the way for the authoritarianism seen after all the major world revolutions. Lost count of the number of memoirs by fine old Chinese revolutionaries who wished they'd spoken out long before their sense of duty and loyalty was finally broken by the awful reality of what was going on.

 

[Groucho]

Meanwhile, the SWP are hosting a special screening of Night of the Living Dead in aid of the Socialist Worker appeal.

 

[belboid]

with John Rees introducing I presume

 

[TremulousTetra]

I believe it cripples the class politically and paves the way for the authoritarianism seen after all the major world revolutions. Lost count of the number of memoirs by fine old Chinese revolutionaries who wished they'd spoken out long before their sense of duty and loyalty was finally broken by the awful reality of what was going on.

you're being disingenuous. You know I don't want that, you know the SWP membership/leadership don't want that, and you know we have counter arguments for what you are saying.

We all want the same thing, communism. A truly classless stateless society. We just have different approaches, to achieving the same goal. And that many on here regularly refuse to accept that FACT, displays a level sectarian dishonesty imo.

 

[JimW]

you're being disingenuous. You know I don't want that, you know the SWP membership/leadership don't want that, and you know we have counter arguments for what you are saying.

We all want the same thing, communism. A truly classless stateless society. We just have different approaches, to achieving the same goal. And that many on here regularly refuse to accept that FACT, displays a level sectarian dishonesty imo.

I'm not, it's honestly what I think - probably phrased a bit cack because you could debate and argue quite a lot in CCP, and I'm aware of the arguments why not. I also believe people join the SWP wanting the same or similar stuff to me. The reason I was put off as a youth and wouldn't join now is really that - don't think you can divorce ends and means. It might be sectarian in the sense it's why I'd not join your sect but that's it.
E2A: That's why I mentioned the Chinese revolutionaries - I'm an anarchist but I'm well aware that the people who made the Chinese revolution were overwhelmingly good people working for good ends, and there's many whose memoirs I've read I sincerely admire, but this is one of the things that I think made it go wrong, and some of them too, including people who fondly recall self-criticisms.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It says the same damn thing.

Where do the fault lie?

they are not the same damn thing.


If you look at Nigel's original post 191, and look at the post from belboid articil8 in response to Nigel's, all three AGREE that a group on the central committee, conspired against another group, for "disingenuous" reasons little to do with politics, and more to do with personalities, egos, a desire to keep their jobs, and an inability to accept responsibility for being wrong. If I have misread Nigel's articil, so has belboid articil8.
Conspiracy. 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

Now I accept that is not how Nigel intended it to be read.

Neither of these statements relied on any assumption that the disagreements were motivated by ego or personality. In fact there's nothing personal about them at all. They result from a recognition that a factional struggle has arisen and that each faction has a different political line. If both believe that their factional line is correct (and it really would be reducing things to the level of personal soap opera if I claimed that they did not), then both groups will still want to see their line implemented. For each grouping, struggling to have their line implemented is a direct consequence of wanting to see the party succeed.

saying they did what they did to save their jobs etc., And saying they did what they did for the best interests of the party, a completely different things.