SWP: Mother of all splits looms?

[Fedayn]

Well I was a delegate at conference (dubbed the 'democracy conference')

An SWP conference self referenced as the 'Democracy Conference'. Begs the question wherer was the democracy in all the preceding conferences?

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)

Out of the mouths of babes....

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

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....

Politics is about tribalism not the real world

 

[TremulousTetra]

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....

spot on! Far better to accept the reality. 1. not everybody is going to agree. 2. Just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean they necessarily have machiavellian reasons, you need to; 3. Welcome difference of opinion in debate, BUT achieve maximum unity of action with the maximum number of working class people.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

RMP3:

I am still none the wiser about what you think I am distorting. All you've said by way of explanation is "motivation". Whose motivation do you think I'm distorting?

I said that the CC Majority, as a group which thinks that minorities shouldn't be on the leadership, moved against Rees rather than the whole minority for tactical reasons. I presume you agree with that much?

I also said that the former CC Minority, as another group which thinks that minorities shouldn't be on the leadership, went for principled reasons and also for tactical ones. This assumes that they haven't been won over by the incredible force of the Majority's arguments and still think that their line is the best way forward for the party.

I don't get what you think is a distortion.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

"Each of us have tend to think we see things as they are, but this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are-or, as we are conditioned to see it. When we open our mouths to describe what we see, we in effect describe ourselves, our perceptions, our paradigms. When other people disagree with those, we immediately think something is wrong with them. But, as the demonstration shows, sincere, clear headed people see things differently, each looking through the unique lens of experience."

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

Whereas the argument from you lot above does not contradict itself?

The argument is, one faction is being scape goated for the "wrong decision", but neither faction even believes that there ever was a "wrong decision". The logic for this amazing twist of logic, is so they can keep their jobs/power?

Sorry, that just isn't going to fly FOR ME! Perhaps that's my conditioning, political kaleidoscope, but no one has attempted to explain the glaring contradiction the argument

 

[belboid]

JR is being scapegoated (a bit of an unfair term i think here, but what the hell) not for getting anything 'wrong' with the general tactics, but for 'failing to follow discipline'. There is no admission that they went into Respect without fully considering or planning for what was always likely to happen, or for the idiotic 'witch-hunt' petition and load of old tosh that saw Respect split. Admitting that would see all the CC having to hold their hands up to a fuck up, but they are incapable of doing so, and so heap ALL the blame on JR's shoulders.

I see no contradiction there. It might contradict what other critics are saying, but that might just be because we are different people, not all arguing the same thing.

 

[TremulousTetra]

JR is being scapegoated (a bit of an unfair term i think here, but what the hell) not for getting anything 'wrong' with the general tactics, but for 'failing to follow discipline'.

You're wrong imho, and so was Nigel. JR is stepping aside because of the discipline. If Nigel had written this;

"Actually, they are behaving in a principled way once you take into account the SWP's understanding of democratic centralism. They really believe, and this is a view shared by both leadership factions and the members, that minorities shouldn't be be able to paralysis, diviide, and engender factionalism etc in the SWP.

If you don't think that minorities should able to paralysis, diviide, and engender factionalism and you are in a minority, it's entirely principled to refuse nomination to that body.

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 view of how a leadership should be organised. " I would have agreed, instead of saying what I did.

There we have a political analysis of the politics of the SWP, which explains their actions in terms of their real politicS. It explains the actions of both factions. I'm not saying you have to agree with those politics, I'm not saying you have to agree with their paradigm of democratic centralism, but if you are going to attack anything, at least attack the politics. You can disagree. You don't need to hyperbole about people's personalities, group psychology, which just sound like bogus conspiracy theories to me. [I know you don't like my opinion about conspiracy theory, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't state what I believe, or will be intimidated by your arguing techniques into not stating that belief.]

There is no admission that they went into Respect without fully considering or planning for what was always likely to happen, or for the idiotic 'witch-hunt' petition and load of old tosh that saw Respect split. Admitting that would see all the CC having to hold their hands up to a fuck up, but they are incapable of doing so, and so heap ALL the blame on JR's shoulders.

that could be true, but that is nothing to do with JR is being scapegoated, he isn't.

I see no contradiction there. It might contradict what other critics are saying, but that might just be because we are different people, not all arguing the same thing.

you are arguing virtually the same as Nigel. And what bugs me about you both, and the others, is you don't seem able to accept/recognise a genuine difference of political philosophy.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

but the ruling class do conspire, on a board of directors say, to deceive people so as to scapegoate two members of that board for the ills of the company. This is a conspiracy. And is exactly what has been described in this thread to have taken place in the CC.

 

[belboid]

but the ruling class do conspire, on a board of directors say, to deceive people so as to scapegoate two members of that board for the ills of the company. This is a conspiracy. And is exactly what has been described in this thread to have taken place in the CC.

thats unusual tho, it general it is simply the bosses recognising a common interest.

 

[belboid]

You're wrong imho, and so was Nigel. JR is stepping aside because of the discipline. If Nigel had written this;

"Actually, they are behaving in a principled way once you take into account the SWP's understanding of democratic centralism. They really believe, and this is a view shared by both leadership factions and the members, that minorities shouldn't be be able to paralysis, diviide, and engender factionalism etc in the SWP.

If you don't think that minorities should able to paralysis, diviide, and engender factionalism and you are in a minority, it's entirely principled to refuse nomination to that body.

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 view of how a leadership should be organised. " I would have agreed, instead of saying what I did.

There we have a political analysis of the politics of the SWP, which explains their actions in terms of their real politicS. It explains the actions of both factions. I'm not saying you have to agree with those politics, I'm not saying you have to agree with their paradigm of democratic centralism, but if you are going to attack anything, at least attack the politics. You can disagree. You don't need to hyperbole about people's personalities, group psychology, which just sound like bogus conspiracy theories to me. [I know you don't like my opinion about conspiracy theory, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't state what I believe, or will be intimidated by your arguing techniques into not stating that belief.]

that could be true, but that is nothing to do with JR is being scapegoated, he isn't.

you are arguing virtually the same as Nigel. And what bugs me about you both, and the others, is you don't seem able to accept/recognise a genuine difference of political philosophy.

No one has gone on about 'personalities', let alone been hyperbolic about it. Except maybe you.

There was no significant difference in political philosophy, the decision by the CC majority to remove JR was because of 'ill-discipline. It is simply untrue - completely and utterly untrue - that he simply 'stepped aside'. If you've read the IB's then that is obvious, so I really dont understand why you are trying to deny it.

You've also removed any reference to any individual, as if somehow the SWP had become the only organisation on the planet ever where no one had an ego, there was no conflict of personalities etc etc (saying that, by the way, does NOT mean that EVERYTHING was decided upon on the basis of personalities)

All in all, your version seems woefully naive and wilfully ignorant. But keep on believing, one day reality might catch up with you.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Although this whole thread is about a supposedly massive split in the SWP and Resistancemp3 refers repeatedly to factions on the Central Committee, I don't think that there is any kind of faction-led conspiracy against John Rees.

What I think happened is that with the failure of the Respect campaign that the CC picked up on the views within the party that the substitution of an invented left wing parliamentary party to replace the old Labour party was a waste of time energy and money.

Creating a parliamentary party out of the opposition to the war was meant to enable recruitment from that party to the SWP itself. It has to do with the takeover of the Labour Party by New Labour. To some extent in the days of 'Old' Labour there were links between some members Labour Party branches and SWP branches and the paper was sold to Labour party members. This was a source of new members for the SWP as the Labour Party was seen to disappoint when in power.

Once 'Old' Labour was killed off by the new masters at Millbank the SWP had no connections or influence upon people working in Parliamentary politics or in Local Councils where most grassroots politics used to take place. A similar thing was happening in Trade Unions. One sphere of activity of the SWP was on Trades Councils. As union membership declined, Trades Councils also reduced in size and influence.

I can quite understand how the SWP senior management - sorry CC became concerned and saw the numbers of people supporting first of all 'anti-capitalism' and secondly the anti-war movement as the potential recruits. The whole Respect adventure followed from this. Galloway was an appealing and coherent speaker against the war and it is understandable that he seemed to be a useful ally. Sadly the SWP had very little experience of fighting elections and just using mass leafleting with very verbose and complex leaflets made less impact than they hoped. They came very late to the idea of canvassing and in relying on Muslim family connections to deliver mass votes in Muslim wards did not work for them as well as it had for the Labour Party of the past.

So my guess is that the CC eventually having realised that Respect - especially after it split was not a worthwhile use of resources. I think that the majority members of the CC made a policy decision in a back room somewhere and worked out that the only way to quickly dispose of Respect which it could not even sell to its own SWP members, was to remove John Rees from his influence on the CC.

They rightly concluded that it would not be necessary to remove Lindsey German as she would doubtless go of her own volition. I don't know whether they thought that Chris Nineham would leave.

I don't think that there are now any 'factions'. The official 'slate' was voted in because the rival one by Lindsey was withdrawn.

As for why the conference was billed as the Democracy Conference, this will be because it was the event where the Democracy Committee was created. What that will produce is yet to be seen.

 

[Fedayn]

As for why the conference was billed as the Democracy Conference, this will be because it was the event where the Democracy Committee was created. What that will produce is yet to be seen.

What is a 'Democracy Committee'?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You're wrong imho, and so was Nigel. JR is stepping aside because of the discipline. If Nigel had written this;

"Actually, they are behaving in a principled way once you take into account the SWP's understanding of democratic centralism. They really believe, and this is a view shared by both leadership factions and the members, that minorities shouldn't be be able to paralysis, diviide, and engender factionalism etc in the SWP.

If you don't think that minorities should able to paralysis, diviide, and engender factionalism and you are in a minority, it's entirely principled to refuse nomination to that body.

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 view of how a leadership should be organised. " I would have agreed, instead of saying what I did.

You see I couldn't have written the above, because it takes for granted that allowing minorities to be represented on leading bodies automatically leads to them paralysing and dividing the body concerned. I don't think that's the case, I don't think that has been the experience of the revolutionary left from the Bolsheviks onwards and I don't think that every member of the SWP is foolish enough to think that way either.

But that's not the main change you've made. You have excluded two other significant things:

1) I pointed out that the CC Majority had moved only against Rees and not against German and Nineham. This is in contradiction to the shared belief of both factions that minorities shouldn't be on the leadership and can only be explained in terms of factional tactics.

2) I pointed out that the decision of the CC Minority to resign, as well as fitting in with their view of how leading should operate, is also a sensible move from a factional point of view.

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.

Everything I said was perfectly reasonable once you accept that:

1) There has been a factional struggle.
2) The minority, having lost the votes, decided to get out of the way to allow the majority line to be implemented (as the SWP thinks minorities should).
3) The minority hasn't, in the course of the weekend, magically been won over to the line of the majority. If they had been won over and if the majority still wanted the newly won over Nineham and German to be on the CC then it would make no sense to resign.

In these circumstances, you have to look at the question of factional tactics to explain events. It's only through that lense that it makes sense for the majority to go after Rees rather than Rees and his co-thinkers. It's only through that lense that it makes sense for his co-thinkers to have marched with him. Saying that doesn't reflect particularly badly on any of the people concerned. They think that this disagreement matters and they are behaving, within the rules of the SWP, as people who think that their disagreements matter should behave.

If you are in the minority, and you think that your political differences with the majority matter, you shouldn't want to be in a position where you will carry the can for the mistakes of the majority.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

What is a 'Democracy Committee'?

It is something that has been set up to investigate ways of improving democracy in the SWP. It will report in about 3 months or so I believe. This can only be a good thing if it works.

 

[Fedayn]

It is something that has been set up to investigate ways of improving democracy in the SWP. It will report in about 3 months or so I believe. This can only be a good thing if it works.

Yet again, surely the establishment of such a committe is an admission that the previous level of internal party democracy was at best insufficient at worst nearly non existent?!

 

[TremulousTetra]

No one has gone on about 'personalities', let alone been hyperbolic about it. Except maybe you.

There was no significant difference in political philosophy, the decision by the CC majority to remove JR was because of 'ill-discipline. It is simply untrue - completely and utterly untrue - that he simply 'stepped aside'. If you've read the IB's then that is obvious, so I really dont understand why you are trying to deny it.

You've also removed any reference to any individual, as if somehow the SWP had become the only organisation on the planet ever where no one had an ego, there was no conflict of personalities etc etc (saying that, by the way, does NOT mean that EVERYTHING was decided upon on the basis of personalities)

All in all, your version seems woefully naive and wilfully ignorant. But keep on believing, one day reality might catch up with you.

me v you/nigle don't have a genuine difference of political philosophy ie sw def of dem soc?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Yet again, surely the establishment of such a committe is an admission that the previous level of internal party democracy was at best insufficient at worst nearly non existent?!

Yes

 

[belboid]

me v you/nigle don't have a genuine difference of political philosophy ie sw def of dem soc?

oh, i thought you meant in the CC internal wrangles.

I don't know what your definition of democratic socialism is. Nor the SWP's. I guess that's what dem soc means.

Did you mean dem cen? Cos we definitely disagree on that, but you can't be daft enough to agree with that guff, can you?

 

[articul8]

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 agree there is no fundamental disagreement of political principle, and no "conspiracy", but it is a genuine clash between different kinds of opportunist tactic

The crude Leninist methodology of the SWP as being opportunist instrumentalsm - whatever is effective in building the party is ipso facto "a good thing" regardless. But this means that the judgements of validility are made ex post facto - the division in how a rev leadership is to move on only after a strategy that doesn't succeed. Rees et al want to say "we tried our best but objective conditions..." before moving on to the next exciting development. Whereas the maj recognise that the credibility of the leadership has taken a dent because the bulk of non party fellow travellers with Respect (Loach, Yacqoob, Ridley, etc.) took Galloway's side and others (Ovenden, Hoverman, Hicks, Steel etc.) left the SWP orbit. Rather than take the hit on the chin, the maj wants to restore its "pristine" credentials and needs a token purge to do so.

 

[Groucho]

OK I am going to add just a little bit. The disagreement and dispute has not been confined to a faction fight within the cc. Rather there has been a movement from the bottom up that has been responded to favourably by the majority group on the cc. It is not simply a matter of significant tactical errors made by the talented John Rees (most noteably the OFFU cheque) and his refusal to be held to account to democratic structures, although that is what provoked the dispute on the cc. Beyond that there has been a deficit in the democratic workings of the party caused by a political culture that was allowed to develop especially during the period when grass roots party structures were abandoned (a mistake over which there was not enough discussion). The cc got into the habit of internalising debate and not bouncing their concerns or airing their developing views more widely within party structures. There were those on the cc who expressed concern at an early point on all this. Rees in particular was, in my view, guilty of a certain elitism. Those who have left the cc were those who saw nothing wrong with the way in which the cc as a whole had been operating, nor were they concerned by the developing culture of a decreed line that shouldn't be questioned.John Molyneux was among the first to raise at conference a few years ago this issue and highlighted significant issues that required debate and resolution but which had been ignored and neglected. He obtained a minority vote for candidacy to the cc on a greater emocracy platform. It was nonetheless a fairly significant minority (including groucho).
The 'Democracy conference' has succeeded in re-establishing a culture of rigourous internal debate. No-one now expects the cc to be monolithic of thought nor that they be right all the time. Democratic centralism requires rigourous internal discussion resolved by votes and then unity in action.
To my mind the establishment of (and election of) a Democracy Commission was simply an acknowledgment that this change had to occur. In most respects I think the job has been done. The formal structures of the SWP are very democratic, but if leadership bodies do not refer key disputes and decisions to e.g. the national committee, party councils and local arty structures then democracy ceases to work properly. The DC are free to recommend anything and all members can submit views and suggestions, but it is for a reconvened conference to decide which if any recommendations to endorse. My view is that there is no desirability or likelihood that democratic centralism will be ditched. I am opposed to permanent factions.
The DC will need to advise on ways to avoid necessary debates being fudged or ignored in future. In the real world our internal party discussions get leaked and discussion boards will be full of fantasy accounts of imminant split within the SWP. In truth the SWP has emerge invigourated and capable of responding to the challenges of the economic crisis and of Imperialist war with energy commitment and enthusiasm, with a renewed internal culture of debate and questioning from which there is no goiing back.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

OK I am going to add just a little bit..... In truth the SWP has emerge invigourated and capable of responding to the challenges of the economic crisis and of Imperialist war with energy commitment and enthusiasm, with a renewed internal culture of debate and questioning from which there is no goiing back.

How did Chuck get hold of Groucho's log in?

Thanks for the entertainment - Louis MacNeice

 

[treelover]

In truth the SWP has emerge invigourated and capable of responding to the challenges of the economic crisis and of Imperialist war with energy commitment and enthusiasm, with a renewed internal culture of debate and questioning from which there is no goiing back.

'There's never been a better time to be a Socialist'(reprise, repeat ad-infinitum)

 

[treelover]

How did Chuck get hold of Groucho's log in?

Sounds like a NL statement,

 

[butchersapron]

I'm broadly in agreement with Nigel (if i've read him right)

From what i read and from talking to SWPers (though not very influential ones, in fact ones with a grudge against Rees in all honesty) the principled resigners have little wider support in 'the party' proper but do have some amongst the people who came to the SWP over the last few years via RESPECT but who didn't go with the GG lot- i.e those with little weight inside the party. Not enough to change or openly challenge anything though (which, as as been pointed out they appear to have made a choice not to do so on factional grounds anyway). Rees' personality rather than his principles might not let him follow that through though - his urge to meddle and direct might get the better of him sooner rather than later, and he can paint it as a last desperate attempt to save the party - and his and LG's notebooks are now full of more mainstream media contacts than the rest of them. There's potential for hay making, but i'm not sure the sun is out.

 

[TremulousTetra]

thats unusual tho, it general it is simply the bosses recognising a common interest.

it is a conspiracy, people are conspiring, and that is why I have used the word conspiracy theory in this thread.

It is like Nigel says, this is people honestly pursuing what they feel is best for the party. It has nothing to do with them trying to keep their jobs etc IMHO.

 

[TremulousTetra]

oh, i thought you meant in the CC internal wrangles.

I don't know what your definition of democratic socialism is. Nor the SWP's. I guess that's what dem soc means.

Did you mean dem cen? Cos we definitely disagree on that, but you can't be daft enough to agree with that guff, can you?

sorry, I was rushing last night before I went to bed, I didn't have time to start up speech recognition. [don't know whether you remember, my hands are paralysed, so I find typing difficult. Have to rely on speech recognition, which isn't always 100 per cent. Please allow for this.]

Yes I did mean democratic centralism. And this is what you are observing SW. All the psycho babble about group psychology, people wanting to keep their jobs, ego's is IMO extraneous detail, not seeing the wood for the trees.

Obviously you disagree with democratic centralism. Cool! Just fine! Why don't you have a discussion on the boards about that, the real politics, instead of all this other made up stuff. That's why I stopped contributing to the board. There was never any discussion, just people talking at people.

Anyway that's up to you.

 

[belboid]

it is a conspiracy, people are conspiring, and that is why I have used the word conspiracy theory in this thread.

in that case all of capitalism, pretty much, is one big conspiracy theory. Which I think is tosh, tosh which doesn't help develop an understanding of capitalism (or wider society) at all.

 

[belboid]

Obviously you disagree with democratic centralism. Cool! Just fine! Why don't you have a discussion on the boards about that, the real politics, instead of all this other made up stuff. That's why I stopped contributing to the board. There was never any discussion, just people talking at people.

uhh, okay, whatever. I do disagree with democratic centralism, i think, but I also think the SWP (ab)use a version of the idea that is unique to them, without precedent amongst other DC organisations, and make what is already a dubious idea into a thoroughly awful one. Your apparent view that the SWP's version of DC is the only one there is simply doesn't hold up.

 

[belboid]

My view is that there is no desirability or likelihood that democratic centralism will be ditched. I am opposed to permanent factions.

as I just said to rmp3, the idea that the SWP must either continue with its version of DC or dump it entirely is a rather specious one, why couldn't the party adopt a slightly different interpretation of how DC should work? Like adopting the version the bolsheviks under Lenin used, for example. Similarly with factions, is the choice really between permanent factions and ones that can only exist for three months?

 

[butchersapron]

Because, pathetic as it is, they're still reeling and organisationally paralysed (mentally anyway) from disruption cause by workers fight (or whatever they were called) nearly 40 years ago!