SWP split?

[Hocus Eye.]

From what I can gather, in the run up to the SWP conference there has been a grouping of like minded members who call themselves a Left Platform. John Rees has addressed at least one meeting of this group but it is not clear whether he is their leader.

The purpose of the Left Platform is to change the direction of the SWP. They want to focus attention on the problem of unemployment and to develop more united front activities which they think have been downgraded over the last year. They are also very concerned about the falling membership numbers. I think really that they want the SWP to come out of the shadows. After the conference Left Plaform will have no further existence, it is not a faction in the sense talked about in the thread.

 

[barney_pig]

From what I can gather, in the run up to the SWP conference there has been a grouping of like minded members who call themselves a Left Platform. John Rees has addressed at least one meeting of this group but it is not clear whether he is their leader.

The purpose of the Left Platform is to change the direction of the SWP. They want to focus attention on the problem of unemployment and to develop more united front activities which they think have been downgraded over the last year. They are also very concerned about the falling membership numbers. I think really that they want the SWP to come out of the shadows. After the conference Left Plaform will have no further existence, it is not a faction in the sense talked about in the thread.

the left faction is a faction under rules of the SWP ; if you are so ignorant of your own party rules, don't assume that the rest of us are
if you need reminding of the partys constitution I suggest reading it in the pre conference bulletin
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/ref_files/Preconf%20Bulletin%201%20Oct09.pdf

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Rumours are doing the rounds that the Irish SWP has given the boot to its Belfast branch in some squabble involving the People Before Profit Alliance, the broad electoral front they run.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

the left faction is a faction under rules of the SWP ; if you are so ignorant of your own party rules, don't assume that the rest of us are
if you need reminding of the partys constitution I suggest reading it in the pre conference bulletin
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/ref_files/Preconf%20Bulletin%201%20Oct09.pdf

Thanks for that. I did a search on the word 'faction' in that document. It occurs only once, and that is on page 15 of the 36 page document. It is reference to a proposal to re-create the ANL as a faction within UAF.

 

[butchersapron]

No, look at 10 sub-section of the constituion on Factions p.23

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Thanks Butchers I have read it now.

 

[goebfwai]

There is an article about current developments in the SWP in this weeks edition of 'Weekly Worker':

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/791/triumvirate.php

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There is an article about current developments in the SWP in this weeks edition of 'Weekly Worker'

You could probably repost this every week and it would be equally accurate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You could probably repost this every week and it would be equally accurate.

 

[frogwoman]

by the CC telling them to shut it down or be expelled.

did anyone read it before it went? the front page is still available on google cache, but that looked pretty darned dull

a trot website looking dull? well i never

 

[Cliffite]

The most interesting thing about this thread is (despite the existance of snippets all over the internet) how little information people outside the SWP actually have about the debate the "left" platform is going to be putting. Partly I suspect because to understand any argument in a left group involves noting the actual behaviour/activity/emphasis of the groupings involved to understand their dynamic. For what it is worth I think it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be expelled even just for the unnecessary damage actual expulsions can cause. Personally i suspect it to be (in Sir Humphries words) a brave move for Rees and co to think they can inhabit StWc with a handful of close supporters but maybe they have the courage of their convictions.

On the part of th SWP as a whole I think our organisation is starting to seem a lot healthier then it has for a while. Membership lists are getting more accurate as the branch organisation needed to sort them out is coming into place. At least in my neck of the woods ex-members are starting to turn up to public meetings. A gradual increase in Industrial struggle tied with anti-fascist activity pulls even quite inactive sections of the membership plus anti BNP work and functioning branches helps recruit. A culture since last conference where debate is more normative over perspectives seems to have started people reading/rereading classic texts from Trotsky/Marx/Lenin. Personally I feel that in this climate the left platform will have to pull something quite special and coherent out of the bag to do more then hold themselves together in the debate.

Anyway I've probably said to much.

As an aside West London has been absurd to use Nigel's phrase and has been left in a state for some time. That said they have a fulltimer there now (I believe someone something to do with Vestas?) and the 12 branch members seem to mainly be in their twenties. Hopefully they can start to rebuild out of the lists and utilise people like NUT nec member Nick G who I believe is based down there. I hope to god 12 active branch members out of 220 is wrong (I suspect it is) partly as I think there more likely to be 220 people in the district across 4 branches/swss groups the biggest of which will have 12 members (leaving something more likely - 12 out of 60).

I've realised this post says nothing particularly about perspectives but I guess that is not the subject of the thread

 

[articul8]

I've realised this post says nothing particularly about perspectives but I guess that is not the subject of the thread

is the split really about perspectives? Doesn't appear so from the outside - just about egos and personalities dressed up with some strange affection for bland fronts.

 

[Cliffite]

Well I guess thats for you to find out. With the speed IB's are on the net i'd be supprised if you couldn't read it for yourself in the near future. Personally I think their is a perspective at stake behind the personality stuff and there always was. In small organisations in low periods of struggle the personal will inevitably cloud things a bit in a factional situation.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The most interesting thing about this thread is (despite the existance of snippets all over the internet) how little information people outside the SWP actually have about the debate the "left" platform is going to be putting.

I don't think that's particularly surprising or interesting. The documents haven't been circulated yet, apart from the hilarious identical No Platform motions. Once they are, everyone who is interested will likely be able to read them.

For what it is worth I think it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be expelled even just for the unnecessary damage actual expulsions can cause.

People have already been expelled or suspended, have they not?

Now picking off a few of the minority, to goad them into doing something rash, isn't the same as just expelling the whole minority I'll grant you, but it certainly doesn't speak of a reluctance to expel.

Personally i suspect it to be (in Sir Humphries words) a brave move for Rees and co to think they can inhabit StWc with a handful of close supporters but maybe they have the courage of their convictions.

In the sense that the SWP thinks that StWC is its property and that therefore, should there be a parting of the ways between the StWC officers and the SWP, the SWP would seek to replace them with more pliable sorts?

A culture since last conference where debate is more normative over perspectives seems to have started people reading/rereading classic texts from Trotsky/Marx/Lenin.

That will cause some cognitive dissonance.

Personally I feel that in this climate the left platform will have to pull something quite special and coherent out of the bag to do more then hold themselves together in the debate.

Well it looks very hard for them to make significant inroads, as much because of the SWP's undemocratic structure as for any political reason. Three months isn't long enough for a minority to be able to organise, particularly when the existing leadership is always organised, controls the apparatus and when the role of fulltimes is explicitly conceived as pushing the leadership line in the regions and branches.

 

[articul8]

Well I guess thats for you to find out. With the speed IB's are on the net i'd be supprised if you couldn't read it for yourself in the near future. .

Sorry I've read the pre-conference IB and can only see agreement on fundamentals with minor quibbles about what to emphasise in the immediate period - broad united (sic) front work vs. industrial activism plus anti-fascism (in a broad united [sic] front)

 

[Udo Erasmus]

From what I can gather, in the run up to the SWP conference there has been a grouping of like minded members who call themselves a Left Platform. John Rees has addressed at least one meeting of this group but it is not clear whether he is their leader.

The purpose of the Left Platform is to change the direction of the SWP. They want to focus attention on the problem of unemployment and to develop more united front activities which they think have been downgraded over the last year. They are also very concerned about the falling membership numbers. I think really that they want the SWP to come out of the shadows. After the conference Left Plaform will have no further existence, it is not a faction in the sense talked about in the thread.

Interesting on unemployment. Neil Faulkner, whose archaeology-from-below I quite like, wrote an article on the National Unemployed Workers Movement -
http://luna17activist.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-socialists-fought-unemployment-in.html - that was not bad.

 

[mutley]

the next IB will (i believe) have a full outline of what the 'Left faction' is arguing. I'm sure it'll be available from the usual sources.

I'd endorse Cliffites description of the healthier state of the branches. A lot of basic but extremely useful work is going on round the cwu dispute in particular. Reports (or predictions) of our demise are most definitely premature, again.

I'd also just like to say, as a forty-something year old trade unionist, that we are wholly and completely committed to getting as many students as possible involved in socialist politics. This is partly in reply to the drivel on the thread about the EDL in Leeds, that i couldn't face taking on there, the level of 'debate' being so rock-bottom.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I don't think that's particularly surprising or interesting. The documents haven't been circulated yet, apart from the hilarious identical No Platform motions. Once they are, everyone who is interested will likely be able to read them.



People have already been expelled or suspended, have they not?

Now picking off a few of the minority, to goad them into doing something rash, isn't the same as just expelling the whole minority I'll grant you, but it certainly doesn't speak of a reluctance to expel.



In the sense that the SWP thinks that StWC is its property and that therefore, should there be a parting of the ways between the StWC officers and the SWP, the SWP would seek to replace them with more pliable sorts?



That will cause some cognitive dissonance.



Well it looks very hard for them to make significant inroads, as much because of the SWP's undemocratic structure as for any political reason. Three months isn't long enough for a minority to be able to organise, particularly when the existing leadership is always organised, controls the apparatus and when the role of fulltimes is explicitly conceived as pushing the leadership line in the regions and branches.

Does the Socialist Party have organised factions? How do you do it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Does the Socialist Party have organised factions? How do you do it?

There are a whole number of ways to handle significant, organised, disagreements within a political party.

You can ban factions altogether, which was the model the Stalinised Communist Parties used to follow.

You can ban factions most of the time and allow them during a brief window, which is what the SWP does.

You can allow factions, as the Socialist Party does, and as the old IS did.

You can encourage and institutionalise factions, as the IMG and LCR did.

The Socialist Party doesn't encourage factions and doesn't regard ongoing factional disputes as a good thing. On that particular issue it is in theory closer to the SWP than it is to the LCR. However, it does allow factions and it allows them for as long as the people involved think one is necessary. This is because the alternative - banning them for most of the year - creates much worse problems than allowing them does.

In the SP, any group of members can announce their intention to form a faction. The faction is entitled to have its documents circulated in the internal bulletin and, if it desires, to address branches where it doesn't yet have supporters. It's entitled to try to organise for its point of view and there aren't artifically brief deadlines set on their activity. They are not entitled to build a parallel organisation, with its own external publications and fund raising.

The system I suspect isn't all that formally different from the SWP one. The key difference being that there aren't artificial limits placed on when a faction can be formed, how long it has to organise, how many discussion bulletins there are and so on. The Socialist Party also doesn't have a theory that fulltimers are there to fight for the leadership's line inside the party. All of this goes some way to reducing the imbalance in debate between the existing leadership and any dissidents.

 

[JHE]

It would be fun if poor old John Rees started his own little sect, but I don't think he will. He'll probably just continue to suffer the indignity of being out of favour among the leading Social Workers.

I'd like to think that wiggy old loon at Brum Central Mosque will put in a good word for him.

You can ban factions altogether, which was the model the Stalinised Communist Parties used to follow.

The 'model' wasn't invented during the years of Stalin's dominance, of course. He just inherited it from the Communist Party of 1921. The CPSU banned factions when Little Father Lenin and that other bloke, Leon Wotsisface, were still running the show.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The 'model' wasn't invented during the years of Stalin's dominance, of course. He just inherited it from the Communist Party of 1921. The CPSU banned factions when Little Father Lenin and that other bloke, Leon Wotsisface, were still running the show.

Yes indeed. The Bolshevik Party allowed factions up until 1921 when it banned them in what was supposed to be a temporary measure made in desperate circumstances. The Stalinists kept this measure permanently and indeed declared it to be a fundamental principle.

Meanwhile, factions were allowed in the Trotskyist organisations up till Trotsky's death and in most cases thereafter.

 

[butchersapron]

What about the gap between 1921 and trotters realization? Yep, he supported the measure over and over. The trotskyist organisations happened 17 years later. Be honest. This shoddy defend at all costs nonsense does you no personal favours, it's real irrelevance aside.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What about the gap between 1921 and trotters realization? Yep, he supported the measure over and over. The trotskyist organisations happened 17 years later.

The gap was not 17 years. It was about 2.

Trotsky sought to form a faction while still in the Communist Party, starting in 1923. From the moment that separate Trotskyist organisations began to be established, starting around 1930, they allowed factions.

He did however continue to defend the original banning of factions, as a temporary emergency measure and did so until the end of his life. Far from "defending at all costs", I think that he was flat out wrong on that.

 

[butchersapron]

He started a faction within the party whilst the rules said that he couldn't. As you correctly say, he was a liar. It's all expediency Nigel, get used to it.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

He started a faction within the party whilst the rules said that he couldn't.

Dead fucking right he did. And upon doing so he fought against Stalin from that moment until he was murdered, while all around him, from Kollantai to Kamenev, capitulated one by one.

 

[butchersapron]

The lesson being organizationally - do what you will. Unless we tell you not tr you're a BIG MAN. He actually didn't btw. The only sources for him doing so are...stalin

The little fable of trotskys' struggle pre-28, you still selling that?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The lesson being organizationally - do what you will.

Or alternatively the lesson is that Trotsky shouldn't have supported the banning of factions as a temporary measure in the first place.

 

[butchersapron]

...but you're cover up the next few years for him anyway. There's a more specific lesson about you and you party from that.

 

[JimPage]

Of no relevance at all to this thread, but...

There was meant to be a meeting last weekend called by the SWP to discuss a "left unity" slate for the next general election, together with Respect, SP, CPB

I cannot find any reports of the outcome of this anywhere. Did the meeting take place and what happenned?

 

[Rod Sleeves]

I heard (in the pub last night lol) that in the North East people are rejoining the SWP to oppose the left platform to stop it wrecking the SWP, and plan to leave again once it is defeated.