SWP: Mother of all splits looms?

[Louis MacNeice]

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

Oh if only we had the right democratic centralism it would all be alright...if only...if only.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

Oh if only we had the right democratic centralism it would all be alright...if only...if only.

Louis MacNeice

Well, that's life isn't it? Even from the best possible starting point you have to constantly work to attain/maintain something.

Anyway, have you been taking sarcasm lessons from Butch? You can do better than that, Louis.

C'mon, marshall your argument instead of sniping

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

I completely empathise with your views, and your stance as an anarchist. I'm really love the idea that you can build communism in the here and now, but I just don't think it's possible. I honestly feel anarchism takes the class down a cul De SAC, that won't even get the chance to get far as the Bolsheviks did, but it doesn't make me three anarchists like the enemy. Sure debate fraternally the pros and cons of each stanc, but the sectarian hatred that is displayed on he is just wrong.

PS. First time I've spoke to you, so comments not necessarily directed at you.

 

[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?

No he is blinkered to such a point that what he comes out with on here is sometimes funny and nearly always useless; he shows all the self awareness of the contents of my metaphorical waste paper bin.

As it goes my quickly written organisational suggestions contain much more capacity to cope with 'different approaches to the same problem' (without advocating 'doing what the frick you want') than the practice of democratic centralism allows for.

As for your second paragraph; it's banal unthinking tripe. Firstly, you don't welcome anarchism, you caricature it; I can see that and I'm not an anarchist. Secondly, why would I wish a system of organisation success, in all its glorious variations, that has a proven track record of failure at home and elsewhere?

It's your 'we're all in this together' contentless platitudes that really grate and lead me to make accusations of dishonesty; I just don't believe anybody could be as consistently dim as you.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well, that's life isn't it? Even from the best possible starting point you have to constantly work to attain/maintain something.

Anyway, have you been taking sarcasm lessons from Butch? You can do better than that, Louis.

C'mon, marshall your argument instead of sniping

You're the one who started with the day dreaming. Give me an example of the success of dcism and why it is appropriate for the current situation; saying the Bolsheviks did it won't cut the mustard.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. off topic did I see somewhere on these boards that you have started running again?

 

[JimW]

I completely empathise with your views, and your stance as an anarchist. I'm really love the idea that you can build communism in the here and now, but I just don't think it's possible. I honestly feel anarchism takes the class down a cul De SAC, that won't even get the chance to get far as the Bolsheviks did, but it doesn't make me three anarchists like the enemy. Sure debate fraternally the pros and cons of each stanc, but the sectarian hatred that is displayed on he is just wrong.

PS. First time I've spoke to you, so comments not necessarily directed at you.

I'm happy being fraternal in person or on the Internet where it's just views being aired, but that thing I said above about thinking it's an actively bad/damaging political choice has ended up making me "sectarian" on this in activity I've been involved in. I think it's a key issue.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Oh if only we had the right democratic centralism it would all be alright...if only...if only.

Louis MacNeice

all the major working class movements in Britain have had some style of executive, chartism, reformism, state communism. Can you name any movement in the UK, that has influenced a significant section of the working class, that has had the kind of democratic structures you would like?

Sure, this is probably because of 'the muck of ages', but that is precisely the point of a revolutionary Vanguard, workers' state, being a stepping stone to communism.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

all the major working class movements in Britain have had some style of executive, chartism, reformism, state communism. Can you name any movement in the UK, that has influenced a significant section of the working class, that has had the kind of democratic structures you would like?

Sure, this is probably because of 'the muck of ages', but that is precisely the point of a revolutionary Vanguard, workers' state, being a stepping stone to communism.

I penned a quick reply which showed an alternative to dcism which contained none of dcism's centralised executive committee control.

From there you jump to a position that seems to suggest that I am against all executive power, all the while ignoring the executive power of the conference and branches within my hastily sketched structure.

In addition your post can also be read as an attempt to place any system that includes executive control in the same organisational basket as democratic centralism. You wonder that I think you are dishonest?

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm happy being fraternal in person or on the Internet where it's just views being aired, but that thing I said above about thinking it's an actively bad/damaging political choice has ended up making me "sectarian" on this in activity I've been involved in. I think it's a key issue.

well at least you admit your anarchist political philosophy dictates your sectarianism towards my political philosophy. In contrast, I know every member of SW would repeat what I said earlier, we would absolutely love a successful anarchist movement.
ea2
In fact I would probably join it.

 

[Spion]

You're the one who started with the day dreaming. Give me an example of the success of dcism and why it is appropriate for the current situation; saying the Bolsheviks did it won't cut the mustard.

Why is it daydreaming? I already explained my understanding of DC a few posts ago. Surely it's up to you to critique that and to show me the light, no? As it is, I have absolutely no idea why you object to DC. Really, I don't

p.s. off topic did I see somewhere on these boards that you have started running again?

Sadly not. Err, I walk the dog a lot tho

 

[TremulousTetra]

I penned a quick reply which showed an alternative to dcism which contained none of dcism's centralised executive committee control.

From there you jump to a position that seems to suggest that I am against all executive power, all the while ignoring the executive power of the conference and branches within my hastily sketched structure.

In addition your post can also be read as an attempt to place any system that includes executive control in the same organisational basket as democratic centralism. You wonder that I think you are dishonest?

Louis MacNeice

yeah, fair enough, it's anarchism I'm fixating on at the moment. BA, was going on about non executive movements, I suppose my question should have been addressed to him.

It's just your flippant dismissal is crass. To dismiss democratic centralism because it hasn't delivered goods, naturally means you have to dismiss the whole left, because none of them have delivered the goods. Have they? Do you have an example who have delivered the goods?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

well at least you admit your anarchist political philosophy dictates your sectarianism towards my political philosophy. In contrast, I know every member of SW would repeat what I said earlier, we would absolutely love a successful anarchist movement.

Would that include Pat Stack?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

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

So, here, effectively it's an adherence to a form of centrally-held position. A member has to agree with the democratically (presumably) decided principles of the organisation?

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

The latter sentence is not controversial. Does the first sentence indicate whether branches have a choice or not to 'pursue these aims in the light of the analysis'

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

Democracy. Which presumably informs point 1

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...

So, a new issue arises. Branches discuss it, the admin cttee discusses it. How are decisions then made about what to do and what freedom or otherwise to members have as regards following those decisions?

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...

It's not far off being DC, but just very woolly. Although that may be my understanding of what you've said, tho I'm sure you'll clarify my questions


Cheers

Spion McRanter

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

I've just reread this. It's you being dishonest.

As far as I read above, there is no a leadership executive, like the chartists, reformists, state communists, it is merely an "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."

 

[JimW]

well at least you admit your anarchist political philosophy dictates your sectarianism towards my political philosophy. In contrast, I know every member of SW would repeat what I said earlier, we would absolutely love a successful anarchist movement.

Cheers! We'll put you down for a few quid next time we have a whip-round for the North China Federation
It's that bit about "crippling the class" I mentioned really - I don't object to discipline once there's a task at hand, but the way I've seen DC play out has meant parties can look dishonest or do a complete about-face seemingly out of nowhere. That and the need to all be arguing the exact same line on everything domestic or international all at once gives people the wrong idea of what's needed to be active in revolutionary politics imo. I think it also removes necessary checks in an organisation and enables the worst shysters to float to the top, as it creates an ideal environment for them to manipulate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's not far off being DC, but just very woolly. Although that may be my understanding of what you've said, tho I'm sure you'll clarify my questions


Cheers

Spion McRanter

surely if the centre just facilitates and administers discussion, the leadership is in each branch, this means each branch can't do whatever they frik it likes to achieve the core aims? There seems to be no centralism there to me.

 

[Spion]

surely if the centre just facilitates and administers discussion, the leadership is in each branch, this means each branch can't do whatever they frik it likes to achieve the core aims? There seems to be no centralism there to me.

You'd be right, if that's how we are to read Louis, and that could result in two branches fighting each other because they interpret the same core aim in different ways. But his statement is very woolly, so I'm waiting to see what he says. I don't know how far these core aims go - are they very abstract or are they quite precise, verging on a detailed programme?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Cheers! We'll put you down for a few quid next time we have a whip-round for the North China Federation
It's that bit about "crippling the class" I mentioned really - I don't object to discipline once there's a task at hand, but the way I've seen DC play out has meant parties can look dishonest or do a complete about-face seemingly out of nowhere. That and the need to all be arguing the exact same line on everything domestic or international all at once gives people the wrong idea of what's needed to be active in revolutionary politics imo. I think it also removes necessary checks in an organisation and enables the worst shysters to float to the top, as it creates an ideal environment for them to manipulate.

I've never experienced a lot of those things.

I've never experienced a complete about-face seemingly out of nowhere. As I said earlier, my idea about the socialist alliance and respect was short term recruitment, whilst putting every effort into achieving the goals of the socialist alliance respect. SWs position I suppose was a kind of about-face, but it was explained where it came from, and why we should try it, and I was won by the argument.

I've never found Tony cliff, Duncan Hallas, Colin Barker, Chris Harman, Alex etc, tio be shits. Lacking in interpersonal skills may be, but so was one of the best organizers we've ever had. He was feared and respected in equal measure. It may sound strange thing to say, but he was absolutely brilliant.

Anyway Gotta go no b ye.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So, a new issue arises. Branches discuss it, the admin cttee discusses it. How are decisions then made about what to do and what freedom or otherwise to members have as regards following those decisions?

It's not far off being DC, but just very woolly. Although that may be my understanding of what you've said, tho I'm sure you'll clarify my questions


Cheers

Spion McRanter

The branches discuss, the admin committee doesn't. The conference makes decisions. Members decide on their own level of activity. It is a long way from dc.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I've never experienced a lot of those things.

I've never experienced a complete about-face seemingly out of nowhere. As I said earlier, my idea about the socialist alliance and respect was short term recruitment, whilst putting every effort into achieving the goals of the socialist alliance respect. SWs position I suppose was a kind of about-face, but it was explained where it came from, and why we should try it, and I was won by the argument.

I've never found Tony cliff, Duncan Hallas, Colin Barker, Chris Harman, Alex etc, tio be shits. Lacking in interpersonal skills may be, but so was one of the best organizers we've ever had. He was feared and respected in equal measure. It may sound strange thing to say, but he was absolutely brilliant.

Anyway Gotta go no b ye.

Non payment won't defeat the poll tax.

Non payment will defeat the poll tax.

Louis Macneice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I've just reread this. It's you being dishonest.

As far as I read above, there is no a leadership executive, like the chartists, reformists, state communists, it is merely an "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."

How have I been dishonest? I said here's an alternative that isn't dc.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

The branches discuss, the admin committee doesn't. The conference makes decisions. Members decide on their own level of activity.

So, in theory different branches could take different attitudes towards the same national strike, a war etc?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

surely if the centre just facilitates and administers discussion, the leadership is in each branch, this means each branch can't do whatever they frik it likes to achieve the core aims? There seems to be no centralism there to me.

Any fights between branches are resolved by the central authority of the delegate conference; a conference informed by the ongoing inter branch discussions facilitated by (but not participated in) the admin committee. Branches can do as they like but they are accountable to their fellow members for their decisions.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So, in theory different branches could take different attitudes towards the same national strike, a war etc?

Yes and then they could learn from the decisions taken. It has the advantage that the whole organisation doesn't get wrong footed by a bad decision from the centre; see my earlier reference to the non-payment and the poll tax. Remember that branches are being encouraged and enable to talk to each throughout the year between delegate conferences.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

Any fights between branches are resolved by the central authority of the delegate conference

And how often are they?

 

[Spion]

Yes and then they could learn from the decisions taken. It has the advantage that the whole organisation doesn't get wrong footed by a bad decision from the centre

Well, that's a risk, but one which can be moderated by continuous feedback from branches to executive bodies. In your model there is the almost certain outcome of getting footed by wrong decisions and effective paralysis from the branches. Still, you can learn your lesson in prison or the grave, eh?

 

[Das Uberdog]

And Democratic Centralism is still, undisputably, the only system of Party administration capable of demanding unity in action. Without it, you can't call an organisation a 'Party' in any real sense of the word.

When you join an organisation seeking political power, you should accept that, having been given adequate say in the discussion of your positions, it is in the greater interests of the movement you are a part of that you act in unity with your fellow members once an agreement has been reached. Otherwise, why join a party at all?

All DC asks for is that you take a step back, take stock of the general situation and act cooperatively and productively - accepting that in political practice you're more effective as part of a group than as an individual.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well, that's a risk, but one which can be moderated by continuous feedback from branches to executive bodies. In your model there is the almost certain outcome of getting footed by wrong decisions and effective paralysis from the branches. Still, you can learn your lesson in prison or the grave, eh?

Why not let the branches talk directly to each other? Aren't they to be trusted? And where does paralysis come from when the branches are autonomous?

Your jibe about prisons says it all about where the attachment to dc come from, i.e. another time and another place. We're heading towards 2017 while you the litter Dog and RMP3 are dreaming of 1917; this isn't Tsarist Russia and you are not Bolsheviks and no amount of trumpeting the neccessity of democratic centralism will make it so.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Spion]

Why not let the branches talk directly to each other? Aren't they to be trusted?

Who said they couldn't and who said they weren't to be? Not me. Straw man. But there does need to be a leading body that makes decisions based on that discussion.

And where does paralysis come from when the branches are autonomous?

If a war or national strike happened and the branches did what they wanted on the basis of some 'core principles' which didn't cover the situation that arose, there would be division/paralysis.

Your jibe about prisons says it all about where the attachment to dc come from, i.e. another time and another place. We're heading towards 2017 while you the litter Dog and RMP3 are dreaming of 1917; this isn't Tsarist Russia and you are not Bolsheviks and no amount of trumpeting the neccessity of democratic centralism will make it so.:

a) I don't believe that capitalism has altered so fundamentally that we won't in countries like this face generalised threats to the w/c b) When I think of w/c organisation my thoughts don't sop at Dover. If you were organising in many other countries the cost of getting things wrong or not acting as effectively as possible are jail or death c) see my point above about division/paralysis in the organisation's response.

Your organisational model won't survive its first major nationwide situation. I'll put money on that

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Who said they couldn't and who said they weren't to be? Not me. Straw man. But there does need to be someone who makes decisions based on that discussion.

If a war or national strike happened and the branches did what they wanted on the basis of some 'core principles' which didn't cover the situation that arose, there would be division/paralysis.

a) I don't believe that capitalism has altered so fundamentally that we won't in countries like this face generalised threats to the w/c b) When I think of w/c organisation my thoughts don't sop at Dover. If you were organising in many other countries the cost of getting things wrong or not acting as effectively as possible are jail or death c) see my point above about division/paralysis in the organisation's response.

Your organisational model won't survive its first major nationwide situation. I'll put money on that

1. The people who make the decisions are the members of the branches and the conference delegates

2. A national strike or war would lead to difference not paralysis; the difference might lead to post conference division.

3. It was not any general and enduring characteristics of capitalism that determined the organisational form of democratic centralism, but rather the particular demands of the Tsarist state and the available means of organisation, information exchange and debate.

4. The SWP doesn't practice it's particular version of dc in order to protect it's non-UK co thinkers; for you to suggest this is risible.

5. My model was rushed off to make a point to RMP3 that alternatives to dc can easily be imagined. Even my feeble efforts have proved to be more than up to that job; which should be a real worry to the proponents of dc on these boards.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice