SWP: Mother of all splits looms?

[belboid]

is this Sheffield doc online anywhere? sounds like one of the more interesting ones

 

[tbaldwin]

Its not just the SWP that is fucked. It is all the ridiculous left that believes in some kind of enlightened socialism from above. And i definetely include most self styled anarchists in that.
Years and years are spent by people on the orthodox left on usless egotistical battles....Meanwhile in the real world people lose jobs and homes and people starve...
Wankers....

 

[belboid]

fuck off tory boy

 

[Random]

Its not just the SWP that is fucked. It is all the ridiculous left that believes in some kind of enlightened socialism from above. And i definetely include most self styled anarchists in that.
Years and years are spent by people on the orthodox left on usless egotistical battles....Meanwhile in the real world people lose jobs and homes and people starve...
Wankers....

You're the bigger wanker, you stupid bastard.

 

[tbaldwin]

Thanks.

 

[mutley]

is this Sheffield doc online anywhere? sounds like one of the more interesting ones

If you ask the nice people at SU they might oblige, but I'm not going to break discipline (or do loads of typing..).


I am actually in favour of the SWP sticking everything on line, instead of whatever Andy newman thinks is newsworthy being the only things that get general exposure.

For example there was a detailed account of the shennanigans in Birmingham Respect in an ib last year. Surprisingly noone ever put that on line. I wonder why.

 

[belboid]

cos it reflected badly on Ger et al, perchance?

 

[mutley]

cos it reflected badly on Ger et al, perchance?

And Salma

 

[belboid]

what's happened to this board? Where's the ten page thread announcing the fact that Rees decided not to challenge the CC list without his name on it cos he realised he'd lose?

Especially as German and Nineham both also resigned from the CC, but claim they will still be loyal SWP members. How can they be 'loyal' when they have immediately cocked a snoot at the party by refusing to follow its decision that they should still be CC members?

The party has to accept that they will be loyal. I guess, as they are all on the StWC sterring committee and can't be replaced yet as they were elected by that bodies conference, and aren't (technically) SWP appointee's

Rumours of a split abound, of course, tho I dont believe them, hardly anyone would go with them.

 

[chilango]

what's happened to this board? Where's the ten page thread announcing the fact that Rees decided not to challenge the CC list without his name on it cos he realised he'd lose?

Especially as German and Nineham both also resigned from the CC, but claim they will still be loyal SWP members. How can they be 'loyal' when they have immediately cocked a snoot at the party by refusing to follow its decision that they should still be CC members?

The party has to accept that they will be loyal. I guess, as they are all on the StWC sterring committee and can't be replaced yet as they were elected by that bodies conference, and aren't (technically) SWP appointee's

Rumours of a split abound, of course, tho I dont believe them, hardly anyone would go with them.[/QUOTE]


Thats how they'll be loyal.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Especially as German and Nineham both also resigned from the CC, but claim they will still be loyal SWP members. How can they be 'loyal' when they have immediately cocked a snoot at the party by refusing to follow its decision that they should still be CC members?

Actually, they are behaving in a principled way once you take into account the SWP's warped understanding of democratic centralism. They really believe, and this is a view shared by both leadership factions, that minorities shouldn't be represented on the leadership and keeping them there only results in paralysis, division, factionalism etc.

The CC majority only moved against Rees and not German and Nineham for tactical reasons (Bambery was always going to skulk back to the majority once it became apparent he'd backed a loser). The logic of their argument against Rees, as Rees correctly pointed out, meant that the rest of the minority should be removed too. But they bottled going for that because their strategy was to scapegoat Rees, knowing that once they'd decapitated the minority that German and Nineham's presence on the CC would be irrelevant.

If you don't think that minorities should be on the leadership and you are in a minority, it's entirely principled to refuse nomination to that body. It's also strategically sensible given that German and Nineham had no hope of influencing policy while on the CC but would instead be there simply as convenient scapegoats for every failed turn and failed policy.

This way, the failings of the new leadership can't be blamed on an obstructive minority paralysing the CC. The CC majority have their line, the minority has gotten out of the way to let them lead on that basis. When the CC majority fuck up, the fuck up is their's alone.

It all makes sense once you remember the SWP's mad view of how a leadership should be organised.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Actually, they are behaving in a principled way once you take into account the SWP's warped understanding of democratic centralism. They really believe, and this is a view shared by both leadership factions, that minorities shouldn't be represented on the leadership and keeping them there only results in paralysis, division, factionalism etc.

The CC majority only moved against Rees and not German and Nineham for tactical reasons (Bambery was always going to skulk back to the majority once it became apparent he'd backed a loser). The logic of their argument against Rees, as Rees correctly pointed out, meant that the rest of the minority should be removed too. But they bottled going for that because their strategy was to scapegoat Rees, knowing that once they'd decapitated the minority that German and Nineham's presence on the CC would be irrelevant.

If you don't think that minorities should be on the leadership and you are in a minority, it's entirely principled to refuse nomination to that body. It's also strategically sensible given that German and Nineham had no hope of influencing policy while on the CC but would instead be there simply as convenient scapegoats for every failed turn and failed policy.

This way, the failings of the new leadership can't be blamed on an obstructive minority paralysing the CC. The CC majority have their line, the minority has gotten out of the way to let them lead on that basis. When the CC majority fuck up, the fuck up is their's alone.

It all makes sense once you remember the SWP's mad view of how a leadership should be organised.

WOW! Through the kaleidoscope of your political perspective, you have managed to discern the truth, and then distort it again.

Well done!

 

[Groucho]

Well I was a delegate at conference (dubbed the 'democracy conference') and all I am prepared to say is that from my point of view it was a great conference (best I have been to) and the outcomes were all to the better. (Glad to have got a seat though as it was standing room only)

 

[butchersapron]

It was the best faction fight ever!

 

[belboid]

WOW! Through the kaleidoscope of your political perspective, you have managed to discern the truth, and then distort it again.

Well done!

really? Where's the distortion? (honest q, I'm not sure where you mean NI is going off).

The idea that there should be no minority faction in the leadership really is a ridiculous and anti-democratic one, and one I'm sure the SWP didn't use to hold to (officially at least)

 

[articul8]

The CC majority have their line, the minority has gotten out of the way to let them lead on that basis. When the CC majority fuck up, the fuck up is their's alone.

It all makes sense once you remember the SWP's mad view of how a leadership should be organised.

Yes, the whole method is to allow the CC at any given time to scapegoat a minority from within its own ranks and hence avoid ever having to acknwoledge that the responsibility for a fuck up lies with the majority

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes, the whole method is to allow the CC at any given time to scapegoat a minority from within its own ranks and hence avoid ever having to acknwoledge that the responsibility for a fuck up lies with the majority

Why would they knowingly perpetrate such a conspiracy? To keep their hands on the 'power'?

 

[articul8]

to keep their jobs? And not a conspiracy - just a disingenuous way of operating

 

[belboid]

Why would they knowingly perpetrate such a conspiracy? To keep their hands on the 'power'?

because they think - no, know - that they're right, and can't face the idea that they got the whole thing wrong. So it has to be an individuals' fault

 

[TremulousTetra]

really? Where's the distortion? (honest q, I'm not sure where you mean NI is going off).

The idea that there should be no minority faction in the leadership really is a ridiculous and anti-democratic one, and one I'm sure the SWP didn't use to hold to (officially at least)

the motivation.

to keep their jobs? And not a conspiracy - just a disingenuous way of operating

why are there so many conspiracy theory freaks, when the truth is so much more fascinating?

 

[belboid]

the motivation.

ewll that leaves me equally confused. What do you think was 'the truth' in NI's post, and whre exactly did he go awry? I'm afraid 'the motivation' doesnt really clear it up for me

why are there so many conspiracy theory freaks, when the truth is so much more fascinating?

dear me, why do some people like to rebut an argument with the ludicrously simplistic and false claims of 'conspiracy'? I'd have thought Marxists would avoid using that kind of language considering it is what anti-marxists say to denigrate the notion of the capitalist class having a consciousness of being a class for itself

 

[TremulousTetra]

because they think - no, know - that they're right, and can't face the idea that they got the whole thing wrong.

so it's all about individuals, and personaliti trates, rather than politics?

So it has to be an individuals' fault

that is nonsensical. The majority are acknowledging there has been a 'mistake' by acknowledging a change of tactics is necessary, it is the minority having trouble acknowledging the 'mistake', and moving on. John Reese and Lindsay German are the ones most wedded to the 'mistake' aren't they?

 

[belboid]

aaah rolleyes, the default tactic of those with no argument

It's about how groups work, practical psychology, AND politics dear boy. There was no admission of a wrong tactical move that I can see (saying something didn't work is not the same as saying it was a mistake).

 

[articul8]

so it's all about individuals, and personaliti trates, rather than politics? that is nonsensical. The majority are acknowledging there has been a 'mistake' by acknowledging a change of tactics is necessary, it is the minority having trouble acknowledging the 'mistake', and moving on. John Reese and Lindsay German are the ones most wedded to the 'mistake' aren't they?

It's precisely NOT about personalities and individuals, but about a structural, organisational inability to take ownership of mistakes - when you fuck up it's always the fault of a renegade or a minority faction or political degeneration from an individual.

The majority uses organisational methods to disown for bad decisions for which they were themselves responsible.

 

[TremulousTetra]

aaah rolleyes, the default tactic of those with no argument

It's about how groups work, practical psychology, AND politics dear boy. There was no admission of a wrong tactical move that I can see (saying something didn't work is not the same as saying it was a mistake).

hence 'mistake' in my previous post. If there is no mistake, you don't need a scape goat, do you?

Psychobabble and conspiracy theory yes, but no politics YET.

 

[belboid]

Psychobabble and conspiracy theory yes, but no politics YET.

eh? Once again, there is no need to invoke any notion of a conspiracy theory. It's a daft argument, hell it's barely an argument at all, merely an avoidance tactic.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's precisely NOT about personalities and individuals, but about a structural, organisational inability to take ownership of mistakes - when you fuck up it's always the fault of a renegade or a minority faction or a political degeneration from an individual.

The majority uses organisational methods to disown responsibility for bad decisions for which they are themselves responsible.

which faction has said it was a bad decision? [I presume you mean to decision to get involved in socialist alliance and respect]

this is idiot simple. Don't think about psychobabble and conspiracy theories, just think about the politics of the SWP.

If this party can believe that the Bolsheviks made the right decisions, but forces beyond their control conspired against the Russian revolution to create one of the worst regimes in the world, then is it not possible they could believe that decisions to support the socialist alliance and respect were right, but circumstances have conspired against it? There is no need to scape goat anybody for the 'wrong' decision, because neither of the factions, or myself, believe those decisions were wrong.

The problem is, why did it take so long to come to the conclusion the party needed a change of tactic/direction? What was paralysing the CC from coming to the obvious conclusion? A minority refusing to give up and move on? I don't know the full story, but this line of analysis seems more logical to me, than conspiracy theories about people deceiving people to keep their jobs. Of course, you are entitled to a different opinion.

 

[TremulousTetra]

eh? Once again, there is no need to invoke any notion of a conspiracy theory. It's a daft argument, hell it's barely an argument at all, merely an avoidance tactic.

Marxism. In Marxism you look at the whole, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Constantly taking sentences out of context, is doing nothing to help you understand what I'm saying. [I am presuming from your previous statements you are in fact a Marxist.]

 

[belboid]

You dont know the full story, so you'll endlessly repeat guff about 'conspiracy theories' to make up for it.

 

[belboid]

Marxism. In Marxism you look at the whole, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Constantly taking sentences out of context, is doing nothing to help you understand what I'm saying. [I am presuming from your previous statements you are in fact a Marxist.]

I think the fact that you are not making much sense might have more to do with why I can't understand what you're saying