SOCIALIST UNITY

13 October, 2009

RIFT IN THE SWP OVER STUDENT WORK?

Filed under: Students, SWP — Andy Newman @ 12:28 pm

I am hearing rumours that two leading SWP students, Clare S and James M (both relatively well known from the blogging world) have been suspended from the SWP, seemingly because the SWP student group (SWSS) at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London have been taking a different trajectry from the very narrow “party-building” line advocated by the SWSS office.

Student societies need to collect signatures at Freshers’ Fairs to register as student societies and thus get funding from their student union, but following this spat the sign up sheets for SOAS SWSS have been taken away by the SWP, preventing the SOAS SWSS society from registering this year.

As one of the comments below points out, this is the second time in very recent years where administrative suspensions have been used, seemingly to silence dissenters, just as the pre-conference discussion period opens.

198 Comments »

Oh goody-goody gumdrops, what wonderful news!

Comment by Roobin — 13 October, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
There also appears to be a major debate in the SWP about “no platform” and what effective anti-fascist tactics mean in the current situation. That is very welcome.

Unfortunately, it seems to be forced through the lens of the simmering factional struggle between the three former Central Committee members and the new leadership, just as these suspensions appear to be.

That isn’t helpful. The danger is that important strategic consideration gets lost in a welter of factionalism. The same could be happening around the Stop the War demonstration, with Rees-German loyalists building it, but others counterposing the demonstration against Griffin’s appearance on Question time two days earlier.

Comment by Nas — 13 October, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Roobin: are you not remotely concerned that another “pre-conference discussion period” has opened up with administrative measures being taken against dissenters?

It’s the SWP’s business, of course. But it’s not exactly an attractive advert.

Comment by Nas — 13 October, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
No, it’s a pre-conference period and I’m concerned to spread round any conjecture, rumour and controversy that passes my way.

Comment by Roobin — 13 October, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Trouble in paradise eh? Let’s hope that a faction serious about revolutionary theory and practise will emerge that can engage honestly and in exemplary fashion with the movement without the loss of too many good activists driven away by bureaucratic fiat, personality politics etc.

Comment by Hmm — 13 October, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
“conjecture, rumour and controversy” - in which category does suspending people from membership of the organisation for, inter alia, associating with “anti-party” elements fall?

Here’s a well-grounded conjecture for you: if you want to get the officers out of the fox hole, start shooting a couple of their loyal troops. These administrative measures show all the hallmarks of that.

Comment by Nas — 13 October, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
My assumption is that the SWP must be run by a pro-capitalist cabal.

What other explanation can there be for the dead-handed ineptitude the SWP bring to any radical campaign they attempt to shape?

Surely, such organisational uselessness and arrogant insularity has to be intentional.

Comment by Daveyboy — 13 October, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
nt9n.02: It is certainly less than the numbers of members claimed by the SWP student office (who ran Student Respect) and who, presumably, built their own organisation out of the contact lists.

But let’s leave that to one side. Student Respect will be working with others to develop a strong left wing current among students. As I said above, the national forum - held, funnily enough, at SOAS - was a good step forward.

[THIS COMMENT WAS RESPONDING TO A NOW DELETED POINT MADE BY “nt9n.02″, WHO IS ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE BANNED FROM THIS SITE FOR PERSISTENT DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR - WHICH IS WHY IT LOOKS OUT OF CONTEXT]

Comment by Nas — 13 October, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
What blog is “James M” relatively well known for?

Comment by Irish Mark P — 13 October, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
#9

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/

Now defunct I think. But he still comments of Lenin’s Tomb.

Comment by Andy Newman — 13 October, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Obviously the helpful thing for everyone is to blast this news all over the internet. And equally obviously the conclusion that this is ‘to silence dissenters’ can be arrived at without any need to interrogate the actual facts.

I’ve no idea what the truth is here, or whether anyone has been suspended or why. But Andy’s immediate knee-jerk conclusion is only to be expected and throws little light on matters.

Comment by swp member — 13 October, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
@ #1, #4, #11

Don’t shoot the messenger…

Comment by David — 13 October, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Nas - if it’s the SWP’s business, why are you so obsessed with them? Maybe you ought to go and talk to someone about it.

Congratulations to Andy on another fact-filled post that it no way represents an attempt to use any rumour that comes to hand in a continuing desire to undermine the SWP.

Comment by tyresome points — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
tyresome points: the SWP impacts on various campaigns and initiatives that others of us are involved in. In addition, it is asking others on the left to work with it through its Open Letter. If it suspends or expels people then it is, ultimately, its business. But it would be naive to imagine that those of us who the SWP would like to be in a common electoral initiative with will have nothing to say about it.

After all, if it is now accepted practice to take administrative measures against its own members in the run-up to its conference, what trust does that build among others on the left on the SWP’s commitment to democracy?

Further, for those of us, and I know it’s not everyone, who would like the SWP to play a constructive role in the development of the left, it is worth of comment, as well as rather depressing, that its leadership is behaving in this way.

Comment by Nas — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Nas - don’t let waiting for any facts to emerge to get in the way of your drooling. You don’t play a constructive role in the development of the left, you carp and rant at every opportunity. It might be naive of the SWP to think that what you mean by a common electoral initiative is for everyone to support your candidates.

Comment by tyresome points — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
‘it is now accepted practice to take administrative measures against its own members’ we can just take that for granted then?

I’ve known students to get suspended in the past. The case I’m familiar with involved someone who now writes isj articles. What are the facts here? Either people don’t know, or they’re leaking dribs and drabs for their own reasons.

I’d suggest the two, if they have been suspended, go thru the procedures which HAVE been scrutinised recently. if they aren’t happy - sure have a public row but use the procedures first.

Comment by Anonymous — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
sorry that was me.

Comment by swp member — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
tyresome: I don’t know what the SWP has in mind about a common electoral initiative. What I have in mind is supporting the best placed credible left candidate in particular constituencies. It’s very similar to something Michael Rosen proposed a couple of months back. I hope the SWP and others on the left adopt something like that. But we’ll see.

swp member: The facts, according to the suspendees, are that they were called to a meeting last Friday with Chris H, Weyman B and Hannah D at which they were suspended for pursuing a different perspective from that laid out by the SWSS office and for associating with “anti-party elements”.

I take your point about previous suspensions. But the surrounding circumstances here indicate that more is at work. For example, the debate in the SWP about no platform is being confused along factional lines. Rees gets a motion up backed by 65 people propounding the position and accusing the leadership of watering it down. But the leadership and its supporters put forward a motion also supporting a no platform position. It doesn’t seem like a clarifying argument to me. It certainly doesn’t seem like the atmosphere in which considered judgements can be made about tactics.

Meanwhile, there’s an important discussion to be had about the Afghanistan demonstration and the role of Stop the War. But that too is clouded by the division between the old and new leaderships.

Comment by Nas — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
The fascists are running rings around us, while the capitalists are about to finish off what remainhs of the welfare state….

Is this ’swp baiting’ relevant now? Well yes, actually! because the SWP appear to be in dissaray - and for all their faults we all need a large organised body of socialists who know what they are doing! But the SWP do not currently know what they are doing!

SOAS SWSS were the best at building united front student work. But after the Respect disaster, the new guard at the top of the SWP want to retreat into the tried and tested routine of ‘party building’ or ’sect survival mode’ - a propaganda routine, arithmetic recruitment to the party - and no attempt to build the broad left anti-recession front the class needs.

We all need to get our act together pronto…. In Leeds at the end of the month the EDL will attempt to spark of a racial religious war to tear the working class apart. Wake up!!!!

Comment by Barry Kade — 13 October, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
I know Clare S relatively well from the student movement and always liked her. She was one of the better SWP members in the student movement - not that the competition was staggering. Amongst a sea of SWSS activists characterised by their sectarianism and dead end politics she stood out for her enthusiasm and willingness to work with everyone with whom she could have an agreement. Her blog also has a reach far beyond that of any SWSS member before her.

Sad that she is seen as a threat.

Comment by Mikey — 13 October, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
I’m sure you find all this highly entertaining, but I don’t see a contradiction between building the party and the movement, and on the other hand, having a discussion between different comrades about the best way forward. We are all agreed and are active in building for 3 objectives right now - the stop Griffin on Question Time demo, the Stop the War demo and building support groups for the post workers. If we have a vigorous debate between different factions at the conference, and go forward united under the perspective that wins out, so much the better for healthy debate which will galvanise people into action! Some of us will sit on the sidelines blogging, and some of us will join the struggle.

Comment by SWP_John — 13 October, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
#21 I don’t think anyone finds this entertaining, not least those who have been suspended. It is in fact a rather horrible experience to find people you thought were “comrades”, united in fellow struggle against the real enemy, suddenly turning on you and accusing you of, in effect, working against the interests of the class (identified as ever and rather handily with the perceived interests of the ruling group within the party).

I agree with those who think that this faction fight, which is clearly gathering pace, will be generally bad news given the role the SWP is still just about playing in the movement, eg in relation to UAF (clearly the leading group’s preferred front) and Stop the War. I can’t imagine it will be more than a few months and Rees, German and Nineham will out of the SWP. There are already, in practice, two organisations working semi-independently of one another.

Comment by rachel trickett — 13 October, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
I should have added that it is particularly despicable for these disciplinary measures to be taken in the pre-conference period. It is no doubt calculated to intimidate and deter criticism in the pre-conference period and particularly the conference itself. It shows a distinct line of continuity with the previous SWP leadership and its disregard for basic democratic principles. But then that is hardly a surprise given that most of the existing leadership were the old leadership. Harman, in particular, should be ashamed of himself as he is one person who ought to know better.

Comment by rachel trickett — 13 October, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Did someone say SWP or WRP

Unlike the Socialist Party who are back from the death

still have to get over that final hurdle of yes those nasty Tories are worse than New Labour

but understand they will get their in the end

The early Militant Tendancy supporters I meet in my Youth always recognised the keyrole of the communist Party and their vital role in history unlike the SWPs “death to stalinism” party before class line.

I do hope both thses orgaisations will learn from each other - a non sectarian left is vital in re building socialism in Britain

Comment by sean — 13 October, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
# 19 Barry Kade writes: “… for all their faults we all need a large organised body of socialists who know what they are doing! But the SWP do not currently know what they are doing!”

Forget about the SWP. Let them stew in their own self-made mire. There’s work to be done and the SWP have shown that they are incapable of doing it.

Time to move on.

Comment by Daveyboy — 13 October, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
NAE CHANGE THEN same tacticts as they used in the ssp

Comment by rikki — 13 October, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
I’m shocked to see some of the people drawn to this thread like flies round shit. I’d never have expected to see Nas or Rachel Trickett here, given that they’ve both moved on from the past so well.

Comment by Mike — 13 October, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
#24, Sean, congratulations in indulging in sectarianism in the struggle against sectarianism.
You said; “The early Militant Tendancy (sic) supporters I meet in my Youth always recognised the keyrole of the communist Party and their vital role in history unlike the SWPs “death to stalinism” party before class line.”
Well the early Militant Tendency supporters you met had the party line drastically wrong then.
When I joined in 1983 the very first document it was insisted I read was ‘Lenin and Trotsky - what they really stood for’ which is a polemic written by Alan Woods and Ted Grant against Monty Johnson and the Communist Party, in particular the Young Communist League.
While the pamphlet starts cordially enough it isn’t long before the boot goes well and truly in.
You can read it online here;
http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/
Militant certainly did recognise the “key role” of the Communist Party in history, they recognised it as having repeatedly sold out, and worse, the working class in every country where it existed.
There’s no other way of saying it, Militant waged an incessant war against the Communist Party from the very beginnings of it’s existence.
Returning to the present, it was the history of Militant’s analysis of the Communist Party that surprised me about the Socialist Party’s involvement in NO2EU.
The Militant analysis was that the politics of the Communist Party meant that it inherently looked for short cuts and was susceptible to opportunistic manoeuvres and switches in line.
NO2EU was an opportunistic stunt that totally fitted the history of the CP and now we find out that the lead candidate in Scotland, John Foster, bitterly regrets the fact that Labour did badly in the European elections and the votes that NO2EU got !
Now the CPB looks set to ditch any attempt to involve itself in a new workers party and throw itself in to the campaign to re-elect Labour.
Peter Taaffe looking more than a little foolish I would say.

Comment by Eddie Truman — 13 October, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
Mikey said:
Her blog also has a reach far beyond that of any SWSS member before her.”

What blog does she write for?

Comment by Irish Mark P — 13 October, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Who really gives a fuck? All you trot parties need to just take a corner of the internet, spend your lives arguing there and let the rest of us get on with changing the world.

Peace.

Comment by lol — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
This is simply drivel.

Comment by Theo Saurus — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
I think, Eddie, that you may find that the dialectic still has to work its way out through the NO2EU project.

Comment by antonio labriola — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
I also think, Eddie, you may be looking pretty stupid (yet again) quite soon. Still, it suits you, along with your tiresome shit-stirring sectarianism

Comment by Party hack — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Well said PH, and he uses apostrophes inappropriately.

“…since the beginnings of it’s (sic) existence…”

Comment by Anonymous — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Anonymous @34, I was quoting Sean @24, it’s his apostrophe ya tube.
I felt compelled to insert the ‘(sic)’ just to make clear I knew how not to spell ‘tendency’.
Now, apart from trying to be a pedantic smart arse but fucking it up, have you got anything to add to the thread ?

Comment by Eddie Truman — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
This just in: there’s a rumour that I can’t confirm concerning something that I can’t say with any certainty, which only confirms other things that I’ve suggested in the past based upon other rumours of the same quality, the result of which is clear proof that the SWP are most definitely eeeeeeevvvvvviiiiilllll.

Spread the word. It’s key to the future of the struggle.

Comment by redbedhead — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Some great photos you have taken Eddie - really like them

As to this thread does anyone care anymore? I say ths as the swp seems a busted flush as does rhe rest of what passes for a left

Comment by VofH — 13 October, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
The upcoming Hands off my Workmate conference is sure to be a barrell of laughs then.

I’m surprised SWP members who’ve worked with Clare S aren’t ashamed not to be defending her more strongly. She could be a bit bureaucratic at times, but she’s clearly a proper activist and deserves some solidarity. Don’t know about the other guy. Same probably goes.

Comment by c0mmunard1 — 13 October, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Surely there is a more important rift that dare not speak its name on this blog……

“But surely you understand Derek that in most of England and Wales a vote for the Greens would be as good as a vote for the Tories.

Will you be joining Andy in calling for a vote for Labour to keep the Tories out?

Comment by Red Bandits — 12 October, 2009 @ 12:10 am
#

No.”

Comment by Derek Wall — 12 October, 2009 @ 11:03 am

Comment by Red Bandits at 8` O clock — 13 October, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
What happened in the end with regards to Bambery and his editorship of the SWP?

This thread just reminded me of that last ‘SWP through a glass darkly’ post on the blog

Comment by Darren — 13 October, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
“SWP”?

Socialist Worker, I meant to write.;-)

Comment by Darren — 13 October, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
Clare is politically all over the place, and certainly a million miles from the AWL, but in terms of methods of operating, being reasonable and non-sectarian etc, she’s head and shoulders above all other SWP organisers and many of their members.

As a SOAS student and as a citizen of the revolutionary left, I’ll be interested to see how this develops.

Comment by Sacha Ismail — 13 October, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
For those interested, Solomon’s Mindfield is Clare’s blog.

Comment by A Very Public Sociologist — 13 October, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
ahhhh the AWL, they never miss a chance to have a cheap pop hiding behind a compliment.

Comment by Anonymous — 13 October, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Apologies Eddie, it clearly wasn’t your apostrophe after all.
It just makes me mad when they’re used incorrectly that’s all. That damn Sean, he’s made fools out of us both (or is that “tubes”?)
And no, nothing to add to the thread other than to urge the SWP leadership to expel these saboteurs and wreckers!
And Scotland isn’t an oppressed nation, the SSP is crap and Sheridan is quite good.

Comment by Pedantic smartarse wannabe — 13 October, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
#42

I didn’t realise SOAS ran cookery classes.

*Old AWL student politicos joke*

Comment by Darren — 13 October, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Andy Newman, 24.09.09: “Chris Bambury has apparently resigned as editor from Socialist Worker, after a journalists revolt; and there have been unexpected changes on the central committee.”

Well, that was crap wasn’t it?

Who’s to say you’re not just talking shite again Andy?

Comment by Truth seeker — 13 October, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
It wasn’t crap.

Comment by external bulletin — 13 October, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
Are you still a student Sacha?! I could have sworn you were at uni about 10 years ago when I was. AWL must be short of student cadre.

Comment by Dave S — 13 October, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Lets see how much leadership the SWP give to their comrades in the CWU

Because they are heading over the cliff

I suspect Tories will announce privatisation on the first day of the strike

That doesnt mean I think the CWU does not have a grievance and face bullying from mamagement

Its just they have TOTALLY FAILED to secure any public support

Have you spoken to anyone recently….they dont side with the posties

Do the CWU care ??? they just dont seem to care

Do they know how hostile the public is, despite the threat by under funding/privatisatisation of the Post Office.

I suspect the CWU wont even be an independent union by this time next year,

And that will be a disater

Learn the lessons of the FBU quickly comrades

Better to occupy occupations

Comment by sean — 13 October, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Total and utter rubbish Sean!

Firstly, the policy or actions of the SWP are a matter for the SWP and will not decide the outcome of this dispute.

Secondly, a 76 per cent national vote for strikes on a 67 per cent turnout indicates both massive support and readiness to fight.

And as for public support, over 80 per cent of the public oppose privatisation in poll after poll.

Royal Mail is in economic difficulties because of government decisions and policies, the bullying management style reflects this and the union has been left with only two options - surrender or stand and fight.

They’ve opted to stand and fight and all of us - whatever our comparitively minor differences here - must stand and with the top fighting union in the country.

This is a fight for us all - solidarity with the postal workers - victory to the CWU!

Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 October, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Karl

Hi there. I agree. The critical thing, it seems to me, is popularising the case for the postal workers and for the public sector.

Simple, I know. But it will require a massive and concerted effort.

Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 14 October, 2009 @ 12:19 am
Hi Kevin, spot on there mate.
We all need to build support for the CWU in this crucial struggle.
A key argument to win will be to explain that it is government policy - sector liberalisation and creating the pension deficit - that is progressively bankrupting Royal Mail, creating the environment in which management slash services through panic-driven cuts and bully workers to hit impossible targets.
Only the union is fighting to save the service - and only the union is fighting to defend jobs and conditions.

Comment by Karl Stewart — 14 October, 2009 @ 12:34 am
I’m sure building solidarity with postal workers will be far easier now that the nefarious SWP have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. Andy, do you have any more details of the irrelevant actions of these irrelevant Trots? I need to know!!!

Comment by Uncle Joe — 14 October, 2009 @ 10:28 am
5 Reasons To Back the Post Strikes

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2173/issue2173.pdf

Comment by Anonymous — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:53 am
“anti-party elements”, are these people for real? Oh well good to see SWP activists benefiting from the recent ‘democratic upsurge’.

Comment by Neil — 14 October, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Yes, mock the use of the term “anti-party elements” as it is clearly one that has been deployed by the dastardly SWP, not one that has been conjured up by loons.

Comment by Uncle Joe — 14 October, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
being suspended for associating with “anti-party elements” … looks like a pretty manichean worldview

Comment by Entdinglichung — 14 October, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
“anti-party elements” is a phrase many people have heard Martin Smih use over recent years. It’s not made up by people outside the party.

Comment by external bulletin — 14 October, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Incidently, every time I post an article about the SWP there is a flurry of outraged denial; and i always end up being proven correct.

Comment by Andy Newman — 14 October, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Clare S can be seen here. Recorded on 7 Oct 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb07gcu-qSc

Comment by timothyMN — 14 October, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Andy, “i always end up being proven correct.”

“Clare S can be seen here. Recorded on 7 Oct 2009.”

Lol! At least this ridiculous thread provided a chance to see an interesting debate at SOAS.

Comment by Ray — 14 October, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
The comrades in question have categorically not been suspended for associating with “anti-party elements”. Nor has anyone been suspended for eschewing Andy’s illusory “narrow party building” line.

Comment by Uncle Joe — 14 October, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
More sectarian shit stirring that turns out to be another smear. What’s new on SU!

Comment by Ray — 14 October, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Thats cleared that up then.

Comment by robm — 14 October, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Uncle Joe - how dare you let the truth get in the way of Andy Newman’s stories.
If you so discourage him, he might not give us the details of the splits that have wracked the post-SWP Respect, which I am confident will be the subject of his next gossip column.

Comment by tyresome points — 14 October, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
so let me get this clear.

Clare S and James M have or have not been suspended? SWP members seem to be blowing smoke out their arse to hide the truth here.

The truth is there is no “smear” they simply have been suspended. My articell is factually acurate on that key substantive point.

It is also a simple fact that they are being suspended just as the pre-conference discussion period starts, which prevents them from putting their argument to the wider membership in the Internal Bulletins, instead they can only appeal to the Control Commission (I know it has been renamed, but it is effectively the same body). they have been silenced.

I also understand that in many areas there is a pretty open divide between the supporters of Rees/German/Nineham, and the supporters of Martin Smith.

Many of us outside the SWP simply do think these divisions are relevent to those campaigns where we do joint work with SWP members.

All this bluff and bluster from brain-dead party-loyalists doesn’t make the problem go away.

Comment by Andy Newman — 14 October, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
so the SOAS two are still happy members of the SWP ????

That will be news to them

Comment by Tim — 14 October, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
SWP NEWSFLASH: “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia”

Comment by Andy Newman — 14 October, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Newman, I am not saying that the comrades have not been suspended, rather that the reasons suggested on this thread are wholely innaccurate. The reasons for their suspension are known by themselves and by many members of the organisation (for example, every student who attended the caucus at Sunday’s party council).

Since you clearly have no idea what the actual reasons for suspension from branch membership (not from the SWP as a whole) then this is all idle speculation. Frankly, its got nothing to do with you.

Now run along and continue your sterling efforts buidling solidarity with Stalin, the Chinese ruling class, or Cornish independence, or whatever other lunatic obsessions you’ve developed in your fringe cyber-ghetto.

Comment by Uncle Joe — 14 October, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
“fringe cyber-ghetto”- the best turn of phrase I have heard in a long long time.

Comment by ben — 14 October, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Why are we not using James and Clare’s full names? They are both high-profile activists at SOAS and 5 mins on Google would tell anyone who they are.

I won’t name names in case there IS a good reason that I’m too dense to work out, but frankly I’m bemused.

Comment by Stevo — 14 October, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Whatever Andy Newman’s motives are - let’s face it they’re malign - it doesn’t alter the fact that to suspend members for nothing more than a tactical disagreement is a Stalinist method of party organisation.
Its all the more ironic that in this issue of ISJ, Molyneux can sing the praises of democracy, totally in the abstract of course, while this is the actual practice of his organisation.
Hopeless.

Comment by bill j — 14 October, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
“it doesn’t alter the fact that to suspend members for nothing more than a tactical disagreement is a Stalinist method of party organisation.”

After reading Andy’s article and the ensuing ‘debate’ I can only say that I heard something quite different as to why they were suspended, I’m not saying methods within the party are perfect for disseminating information to the members, but if it’s written on Socialist Unity, it isn’t necessarily true.

Comment by Bells — 14 October, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Can I just say it’s funny that a guy who regularly writes about “anti-social elements” (eg, opposition people in the DDR, or hackers) and “anti-Chinese elements” (Uighurs) fakes being upset by the use (possibly invented) of “anti-party element”?

Comment by christian h. — 14 October, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
#73: “Its all the more ironic that in this issue of ISJ, Molyneux can sing the praises of democracy, totally in the abstract of course”

While, on the other hand, supporters of Rees (among whom you can count CS & JM) argue that there was nothing wrong with the SWP to begin with, and no democratic deficit. In the circumstances it’s very noble of people here at SU to get quite so teary-eyed about the disciplining of this particular pair.

Note the style of the article too - very Roger Rosewell. Rees’s troops are on the run. The idea that they represent an ‘open SWP’ is so laughable that I… laughed.

nb: “Luna17 refers to Anatoly Lunacharsky, Commissar of the Enlightenment in the Russian revolutionary government after 1917″

Commissar of the Enlightenment?
hahahahahah

Anyway, let’s see if Rees comes out fighting in defense of his acolytes. Which way do you reckon this mighty, inspired and inspiring leader will jump? Personally I don’t care, just so long at he starts from a high enough elevation.

Comment by Jim Higgins — 14 October, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Well yes that’s obviously ridiculous, both sides are essentially the same. That’s the problem.

Comment by bill j — 14 October, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
‘Incidently, every time I post an article about the SWP there is a flurry of outraged denial; and i always end up being proven correct.’

Chris Bambery has *not* resigned from the paper.

Clare and James *have* been suspended but your account as to why is in no way reflective of what has really been going on.

I guess that gives you, say, a 25% strike rate, if we give you half-marks for this article - ok but hardly impressive for a seasonal obsessive such as yourself with the internal goings-on of what you have recently claimed is an organisation about to implode into irrelevance a la WRP.

Comment by Rev9 — 14 October, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Any SWP members who want to know more can of course raise this in their branch/district meetings rather than on the delusional-sectarian-gossip-o-sphere.

FWIW The idea of suspending or expelling members for breach of discipline is hardly undemocratic. Internal democracy is impossible without comrades being able to rely on each other, i.e. without discipline.

John Molyneux’s article in the new ISJ gives a good discussion of democracy, discipline, centralism etc in revolutionary parties http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=586&issue=124

Comment by D — 14 October, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
# 78 - SWP: “… about to implode into irrelevance… ”

Forget it. For those of us who want to get things done the SWP evacuated itself into irrelevance long ago.

Comment by Daveyboy — 14 October, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
“FWIW The idea of suspending or expelling members for breach of discipline is hardly undemocratic. Internal democracy is impossible without comrades being able to rely on each other, i.e. without discipline.”

Actually that’s rubbish. It was pretty difficult to get expelled from the Bolsheviks for example. Zinoviev and Kamenev were not even disciplined - after a little discussion - for grassing up the date of the insurrection. What did these two do?

Comment by bill j — 14 October, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Comrades,

Could you possibly come and help workers in struggle for a bit and leave all this squabbling?

For what its worth I think all of you in trot groups are wasting your time there - but it’s your time to waste and good luck to you. Good luck to anyone who wants to change the world.

The revolution will not be in the comments box of a blog (however well read).

Comment by Jon Rogers — 14 October, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
I love the tautology, discipline members and be accused on SU of being bureaucrats in the GDR (or have their Stalinist crimes been cleansed by Andy?) Fail to discipline members (Rees) and be accused on SU of operating like Stalinist bureaucrats in the GDR (or has Stalinism been rehabilitated by Andy?)

Billj on the other hand makes opportunism seem like a full time job.

Comment by Ray — 14 October, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
It was pretty difficult to get expelled from the Bolsheviks for example. Zinoviev and Kamenev were not even disciplined - after a little discussion - for grassing up the date of the insurrection. What did these two do?

I’ll have to stop you there, Bill - I don’t think we’re allowed to put direct questions. But we have established that they weren’t suspended for associating with non-party elements. All we’ve got to do is eliminate a few more possibilities and we’ll be there.

I’ll start. I suggest that James and Clare were suspended for rightist deviationism masquerading as infantile ultra-leftism. Am I right?

If you’re not in the know, you can still join in - just ask your own question about James and Clare’s suspension, and we’ll see how the inner circle respond. But remember, all the questions must have Yes/No answers - and we’ve only got 18 left!

[Personal to Meaders, if he drops by - I’ve no idea what’s happened, but it sounds pretty crap. Don’t let them grind you down!]

Comment by Phil — 14 October, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Perceptive as ever Ray.

Comment by bill j — 14 October, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Phil: keep guessing, it must be fun to have something to keep you occupied for a change, and what better than the internal politics of an organisation you don’t belong to. Perhaps you could lay odds too, make it more interesting!

Comment by Uncle Joe — 14 October, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Hmm well there is the site called politicalbetting but not emough takers in this case

Or do we need side bets

Comment by VofH — 14 October, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
There is a forth suspension in the North east actually

and the full timer who resigned recently, has defected to the Green Party.

Comment by anonymous 2 — 14 October, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
88 is right. I have heard also of two high profile suspensions in the North East

Lc

Comment by Cain — 14 October, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Maybe the putative faction is composed of the 65 people who supported John Rees’s motion to the recent party council.

I hear that the website counterfire is seen as organising for the opposition. This now has an ineluctable logic.

Also, Chris Bambery may have an article in Socialist Worker, but he is not the editor - check the byline. He’s gone. Get used to it.

Comment by Bilko — 14 October, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
“Clare is certainly a million miles from the AWL”

Well that’s good enough for me!

Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 14 October, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Goldstein has defected to the Eurasians !
He’s believed by many to be at a secret address in either Finsbury Park or Muswell Hill; but more likely in Colney Hatch eating porridge laced with clormazipane and sending cyber messages to North Korea.

Comment by Halshall — 14 October, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
How about giving the SWP bashing a rest and posting up an article supporting the CWU Andy?

Comment by Karl Stewart — 14 October, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Counterfire is an interesting site. It carries good quality coverage of the recent launch of Tower Hamlets PSC with links to great speeches from Kevin, Ken and George, among others. Each speech is in two parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxypAcECnJQ&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV3QdqS1HhM&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vF-VHemlE&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfQK7yRH88&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGgRYw-QskA&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lltEt54rh9o&feature=youtube_gdata

Comment by Ger Francis — 14 October, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Mass expulsions in the North west expected too. Watch this space.

Comment by Anonymous — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
Any chance of a post about the anti-EDL demo in Manchester.

Comment by Anonymous — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
I went there too and couldn’t find anything. Got a link?

Comment by Anonymous — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
http://www.counterfire.org/

Comment by Ger Francis — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Maybe heads will roll in Bristol as well.

Comment by Bilko — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Ger, I know the site, but where is the info about who runs it. It doesn’t say anywhere.

Comment by Anonymous — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
I heard something about it but I don’t really want to get involved in this. Sorry.

Comment by Ger Francis — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Could someone explain Counterfire to me please.

Comment by anonymous — 14 October, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Wow it’s like a mini-drama to you guys, stay glued to your TV sets for more annoucements to follow…

Comment by Bells — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Nothing to explain.

If you go there now all you get is 5 short sweet words:

‘This site is now closed’

Will the suspesions be lifted as a consequence?

Comment by bemused surfer — 15 October, 2009 @ 8:19 am
#75

Christian h is of course a nasty liar, ,who lkes to blow smoke to confise issues.

I have NEVER said that these comrades were suspecned for associating with “anti-party elements”

So why say that I have?

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 8:32 am
I don’t know Christian, but have read his many contributions in blogworld - so far as that goes, he’s neither nasty, nor a liar.

Then again, there’s lying and there’s dishonesty, isn’t there? Like:

‘As one of the comments below points out, this is the second time in very recent years where administrative suspensions have been used, seemingly to silence dissenters, just as the pre-conference discussion period opens.’

Comment by richsw — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:06 am
Counterfire site now says:

“This site is now closed”

The plot thickens …

Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Sorry missed #108, who got there first.

Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:45 am
#110

Perhaps my language is a bit strong, but since you only have to read this thread to see that I have NEVER suggested there people were suspended for “associating with anti-Party elements”, then it is - IMO - not true to say that I have, and nasty to then draw in some tendentious accusation about my wider politics in a personalised way.

This is not a question of opinion or interpretation, I simply have never said it; and the evidence is right here for everyone to see.

Perhaps Christian is not a liar, so much as just someone prepared to knowlingly say something that isn’t true.

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:52 am
#110

”
there’s lying and there’s dishonesty, isn’t there? Like:

‘As one of the comments below points out, this is the second time in very recent years where administrative suspensions have been used, seemingly to silence dissenters, just as the pre-conference discussion period opens.’”

Richsw, can you explain how this is lying or dishonest?

Firstly of all the factual elelments are 100% true:

i) these comrades have been suspended
ii) these suspensions are just as the pre-conference discussion period opens.

my interpretation, which is a reasonable one, whether or not this is unfounded, is that this is to silnce dissenters.

So far from being dishonest or lying, I am recounting true facts and drawing reasonable conclusions.

Of course for the brainashed cultist, truth is not what actually happened in the real world, it is what story is convenient for your sorry institutional self-interest; and in so far that what i am saying is inconvenient to you cult it is in your eyes “dishonest” or “lying”

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:57 am
I was the one who said that the information I had received included a reference to anti-party elements at the hearing last Friday night that suspended the pair. I stand by that.

It is extraordinary that Ade C’s site is now closed. And if you imagine this has nothing to do with administrative measures in the SWP, then you’ve got your head in the sand.

Comment by Nas — 15 October, 2009 @ 10:00 am
A simple and obviuous point. If party members do not associate with anti-party elements then the party can never grow.

Comment by Insider — 15 October, 2009 @ 10:43 am
I hesitate to offer an opinion here, but what seems to be happening is that there is a significant number of SWP members unhappy with the Martin Smith leadership, and who have real and imagined political differences over emphasis.

In a democratic organisation such differences could be resolved by debate, and perhaps even compromise. But Martin Smith and co seem to be assuming that this must be a zero sum game, and in order to prevent these comrades from taking over the leadership (and deposing Smith and co) the “oppositionists” are being suspended piecemeal.

This is the use of control of the administrative aparatus to privilage a perpetual leadership faction, and institutionally protect the position of that leadership from democratic challenge. Of course, the legitimacy of the leadership so maintained is questionable. In circumstances where such manoevres are used by a faction to maintain state power (I think there may have been an example from Russian history, I may be wrong) then at least cntrol of the state apparatus confers some point to the exercise, and that provides its own legitimsation in a purly instrumehtal and value-free way. But I see no point at all in using such methods to control a small, largely propagandist, group on the fring of the labour movement - because the lack of legitimacy of the leadership, and the autocratic methods used actually weakens the infleunce and prestige of the SWP with its potential allies in the social movements and trade unions.

It does however guarantee paid employment, and big fish in a small pond status, for Martin Smith and his nearest and dearest. So it depends on what your ultimate objectives are in politics, I guess.

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 11:04 am
I really don’t get the Counterfire closure. I might have been the only featured non-SWP blog on there, but it certainly didn’t publish anything contentious or critical of the SWP.

Comment by A Very Public Sociologist — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Andy: ‘Richsw, can you explain how this is lying or dishonest?’

But you give your own question its answer in:

‘i) these comrades have been suspended
ii) these suspensions are just as the pre-conference discussion period opens.

my interpretation, which is a reasonable one, whether or not this is unfounded, is that this is to silnce dissenters.’

Whether or not it’s unfounded, ffs? PERHAPS your language is a bit strong?

Some other things: I’ve never been brainwashed; I have a perfectly reasonable grip of the real world; there’s a shrillness to your approach in this thread, which has led you to unnecessary rudeness, and which, to me suggests you know full well where the dishonesty lies.

Comment by richsw — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
richsw

offering an opinion on how to interpret facts is not a lie. Lying and dishonesty relate to saying things that are not true.

Drawing a reasonable inference, which is flagged up not as a statement of fact, but of opinion is not lying.

Saying things that are factually not true, such as Christanh did, is perhapps a mistake, but the evidence was from this very thread, that I had not said what he accused me of saying. So he was at least so reckless as to the truthfulness or otherwise of his statement that it removes any credibility from his contribution.

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
#120

“you to unnecessary rudeness, and which, to me suggests you know full well where the dishonesty lies.”

No, let me explain., Rudeness and dishnesty are two different concepts.

It is possible to be honest and rude; it is possible to be dishonect and polite.

I am rude to people sometimes who i do not respect.

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
To summerise then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Ac3eRarGI

Sorry, to summarise then:

1.Something has happened in the SWP, but noone is sure quite what.
2. There is a huge factional difference in the SWP, which will break out into open warfare, like it did at the last conference?
3. Andy Newman is an angel.

Comment by tyresome points — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
#123

That is better.

I have no interest in debating how active or not I was in Swindon in the SWP. I have moved on since I was an SWP member, so it isn’t relevent. That is why Ii delted your earlier comment.

As it happens there were times I wasn’t very active, there were other times when I was very active. But i am pissed off with lies being told about me.

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
#123 I am not sure what the relevance of Janis Joplin is, but she was a brilliant.

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
tyresome points: oh I don’t think we’ll have to wait long for the full picture to become apparent from the jigsaw pieces.

That there is a factional struggle in the SWP is beyond dispute - that’s what happened at the last conference. That’s why the two most prominent leaders of the SWP resigned from the Central Committee. That was a faction fight (which is not a swear word but just a description of what happens in parties). And it hasn’t gone away.

As for how “huge” the factional battle will be, I suspect it will be very one sided. The opposition - whose supporters are facing administrative measures - is unlikely to gather much support (in my opinion). Rees and German have burnt a lot of bridges in the course of the last two years. But they do clearly have some supporters.

I would anticipate that most SWP members will want to get behind the new leadership in the hope that it can lift them out of the crisis, which Alex Callinicos tells us was precipitated by the Respect split.

He seems to have settled, for the time being, on a rather more cogent view of the development and prospects of the left in Europe, instead of proclaiming that the “forward march of the radical left has been halted”. Whether that can lead to a change in operational practice remains to be seen.

Comment by Nas — 15 October, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Now I am a little confused, isnt Alex Callinicos the “leader” of the SWP or not?

Comment by ben — 15 October, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
@127: Not.

Comment by Futurecast — 15 October, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Right so what do we know so far:

1) Rees and 65 others have a motion to SWP conference placing a different emphasis in anti-fascist work.

2) 2 of the 65 have now been suspended.

3) These suspensions came at the opening of the pre-conference period.

4) The Counterfire website has been shut down.

There are lots of other claims on this thread. Can anyone confirm or refute these claims:

1) There have been further suspensions in the North East.

2) Expulsions are expected in the North West.

3) Counterfire was run by supporters of Rees and co.

4) A formal faction will be declared or has already been declared.

Comment by Howard D. — 15 October, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Andy

‘I have moved on since I was an SWP member’

Although I’m not actually a psychiatrist I did once catch an episode of Frasier in the pub, the sound was turned off, but I think I got the general idea, and in my non professional opinion you still have issues with the SWP.

You are still searching for closure.

I’m not sure but perhaps there is an SWP survivors group you could join.

If not maybe you could start one of your own. It might help you to give your life some purpose.

Comment by anon — 15 October, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
#130

The SWP is a survivors group, bit for some reason they see the need to have paid staff

Comment by Andy Newman — 15 October, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Andy, you are right you didn’t mention “anti-party elements”. Sorry about that. Still the point stands that for a supporter of Stalinist oppression past and present it is a bit rich to fake concern (and yes, it’s fake) about internal democracy in a group you don’t even belong to.

Comment by christian h. — 15 October, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Andy: ‘“you to unnecessary rudeness, and which, to me suggests you know full well where the dishonesty lies.”

No, let me explain., Rudeness and dishnesty are two different concepts.

It is possible to be honest and rude; it is possible to be dishonect and polite.

I am rude to people sometimes who i do not respect.’

Andy, Andy, this won’t do. I wasn’t exploring any concepts, or anything general at all, really. I was being quite specific: I felt you were shrill & rude because there was a dishonesty at the root of what you were saying. Similarly, you seem to to be saying that you disrespect me, when the reality is more simply that I disagree with you. Respect and disagreement are two different things, and not necessarily linked, I know - but I’m not connecting them generally. That is, I think you should be rude less often. It’s a political act.

Comment by richsw — 15 October, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
He disrespects you richsw because he thinks you’re a brainwashed cult member. So no matter what arguments you come out with, you’ll be judged in that context. Why anyone takes him seriously I have no idea. Actually, scrub that. I don’t think anyone actually does take him seriously. Not exactly like he’s even well-regarded within Respect is it?

Comment by Mike — 15 October, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Mike: Nobody takes Newman seriously, least of all his fellow Respect executive members. Still, his blog is a great laugh.

Comment by Uncle Joe — 15 October, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
135- Then why do you keep coming back? I tend to avoid blogs if I think they are by twats

Comment by Anonymous — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
136:

Twat? where on this blog are female fish in the state of pregnancy?

Comment by YCLer — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Vote Labour to keep the Tories out ?!!!
If this is the advice of the ‘left’ then the best we can hope for is a hung parliament.

Comment by Halshall — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
138
that was the swp’s advice in previous election - vote socialist alliance where you can - labour where you must. or words to that effect

by the way the an swp member told me everything andy said is true

cain

Comment by Cain — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Whatever people think of Andy I have also been told that Andy’s report of the trouble in the SWP is all true. A longstanding SWP member in Birmingham also told me much more is to come and not just in the North West.

Comment by Bob — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
138:

I would say the best we could hope for would be a Left-Labour, socialist and Communist majority as laid out in Britain’s Road to Socialism (www.communist-party.org.uk)

But yeah, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Why would a hung parliament be better than say a slim Labour majority? in event of a hung parliament the lib Dems might get together with the Tories.

Or on the other hand, the Lib Dems could join Labour on the basis of electoral reform etc, but considering the Pro-privatisation Orange book group in the Lib Dems- it might not be such a good idea.

I think the only thing the Left can do at the moment is rally enough forces around the People’s Charter (New website http://www.thepeoplescharter.com/)

This is surely the only basis for wider left unity.

Derek, what is the Greens opinion on the People’s Charter?

Comment by YCLer — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
#Sorry I meant to post this under ‘GALLOWAY - VOTE LABOUR TO KEEP TORIES OUT WHERE THERE IS NO CREDIBLE LEFT, ANTI-WAR ALTERNATIVE’

Comment by YCLer — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Actually no, I wasn’t having a pop. I was making clear that, in terms of ideas, Clare Solomon and the AWL are miles apart in case someone used my positive comments about her way of operating to ‘tar’ her. Also to be generally honest and informative.

(I’m not ‘basket-weaving’ at SOAS; I’m studying Urdu, which is my father’s first language and which I’ve been trying to learn, pretty unsuccessfully, for a few years. While I’m there why wouldn’t I do a bit of political work?)

Comment by Sacha Ismail — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
#138
I’m sorry this was also meant for the same post as #142.

Comment by Halshall — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
Isn’t ‘Student Respect’ basically Socialist Action/Student Broad Left renamed?

Comment by Sacha Ismail — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Er, no, next idiot, please.

Comment by Jimmy Jazz — 15 October, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Re 141 - new peoples charter website - at last! For ages the peoples charter has had a really crap lackluster and amaturish website it was embarrassing to point people towards it. It made the P.C look really un- serious and small scale. The new ones better.

I raised the Peoples Charter at a big meeting of my local Green Party in the North West with Caroline Lucas before the Euro-elections - and it went down O.K. Handed out about 100 leaflets about the charter. But back then I had to design and print make my own leaflets - hopefully a more professional approach now. Good. The people charter is something we need to rally the broad forces and develop a program for working class resistance to the capitalist crisis, public service cuts, environmental catastrophe and fascist upsurge.

I would guess (and its only speculation) that this kind of approach touches on the internal crisis of our comrades in the SWP.

The Rees approach had something to offer ( I say this knowing that mans many faults, and his disastrous approach to the problems in Respect etc). But the Rees / German trend was to attempt to push out and build a general united front - Socialist Alliance / Respect, stop the war.

I think they should have gone further. We needed social forums after the big 2003 anti-war upsurge, these could have been the basis for uniting social movements, unions, left individuals into the new broad left party we need. (I think the People Charter is a tool for doing this now).

But this broad realignment approach was damaging to the SWP. When I was a party member we always grew best in isolation. When we moved away from local united fronts ( deserting ‘the swamp’ of local non-aligned activists who would work with us, but also criticise us and not join) and instead raised our own profile as ‘a party’, recruited students and had a solid propaganda routine, then we would grow by ones and twos over the months. But when we immersed ourselves as ‘the best activists’ in broad movements and united fronts, we could have a big impact , moblise loads of people on demos, but hardly ever recruit. Standing alone helped us to recruit, because it increased our visibility, and isolated and ‘raw’ people, new to left politics would see us and join. Its always harder to recruit established activists.

I speculate that Martin Smith and his new CC are steering away from the broad movement approach - and towards the stand alone ‘party building’ method. They have gone into sect survival mode.

Another issue is the continued growth of the internet into the daily life of the working class. The SWP CC always hated and feared the internet, as its networked patterns erodes centralised structures, So they just sat tight and hoped it was a passing fad! They tried to avoid it in the 1990’s, banning party e-lists, etc. Even now their web operation is one of the most boring, static and amateurish out there. They punch well below their weight, clinging on to the format of a weekly newspaper, when even this blog gets now a bigger audience.

A while ago I recommended a new left wing news and comment website, updated continuously, and with embedded video. Interestingly, ‘counterfire’ - an attempt by some SWP members to experiment with this has now been closed. The SWP CC are like the 11th century Chinese emperors, resisting the new technologies of sea navigation and steam power, because it would undermine their empires, and then getting overtaken by the relatively primitive Europe. A sorry state for those with an allegedly marxist undrstanding of history to be in!

But this has always been the SWP’s tragedy. The 1960’s IS was the most dynamic new left Marxist group, momentarily in tune with that decades libertarian networked zeitgeist. Then after 68 Cliff ‘Leninised’ it, centralising it in order to engage in symetrical combat with a centralised ruling class. But this was just when the capitalists were learning from the social movements and developing a new, networked pattern of capitalist power with the emergence of neo-liberal globalisation! And just as asymetric patterns of warfare were defeating imperialism! Doh!

Oh, well. time for somthing completely different!

Comment by Barry Kade — 15 October, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
my comments on 141 now relate to 136, as the comment numbers have moved

Comment by Barry Kade — 15 October, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
A formal faction has now been declared by Rees and his supporters (who did, by the way, run Counterfire). The faction is (ridiculously) called the “Left Faction”. It appears to have no clear political basis other than believing that John Rees should be leader for life and Stop the War is the most important united front. Nothing else is known yet as it hasn’t produced any documents, but there is a launch meeting in a few weeks.

Comment by not john rees — 15 October, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Barry you have it spot on, that is what this row is about

Comment by Yes Barry — 15 October, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
I have moved on since I was an SWP member

You could’ve fooled me.

Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 October, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
144, sorry, I won’t believe a word of this until its been denied by half a dozen SWPers…

Comment by Robm — 15 October, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
144- If it has been formally declared by Rees, spill the beans and let us see it is formal declaration in print.

Comment by Anonymous — 15 October, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
#144 - If it is now a formal faction (I don’t doubt you), where did you get hold of the the declaration from?

Comment by Anonymous — 15 October, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Yet another sad stageing post in the decline of the Weekly Worker. What is the point of it if it isn’t going to carry any decent gossip?

Comment by Mark P — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
So rumour has it that the following has taken place or shall take place.

1/ 2 leading SWP activists at SOAS have been suspended from membership.

2/ That John Rees initiated a motion at last weekends SWP Party Council on anti-fascist work.

3/ That the suspended students supported the motion intiated by Rees.

4/ Further suspensions of Rees supporters may happen in the North East, North West and Birmingham.

5/ That Rees will declare a formal faction tobe called ‘The Left Faction’.

I freely confess that I find the above believable in broad outline. And lamentable given that the SWP remains the largest left group in Britain with many fine activists. That I share much of the groups view of the world only deepens my dismay at these new upheavals in what is now a deeply confused group in terms of perspective and program.

However given that the real political differences between the Rees led faction, if faction it be, and the supporters of the majority are minimal a renewed outbreak of more or less apolitical factionalism was always going to happen. Without an accounting with the opportunist turn to electoralism that was deepened by Rees with his dive into the sewer of populism that was Respect the SWP leadership could not but rebound towards isolationism and sect building.

That decent activists like the young activists at SOAS are now to be victims of this apolitical cliquism is nothing but appalling. But the SWP, despite its many merits and those of its members, has long been a machine for maiming revolutionists.

Comment by neprimerimye — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
#107

“Counterfire site now says:

“This site is now closed”

The plot thickens …”

I see they’re still twittering:

http://twitter.com/Counterfire

Maybe the ‘anti-party elements’ some people have mentioned on the thread was the link to AVPS Phil’s blog?

Comment by Darren — 15 October, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Everybody was faction fighting. Those kids were fast as lightning. In fact it was a little bit frightening.

Comment by Daphne — 15 October, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
‘This is surely the only basis for wider left unity.

Derek, what is the Greens opinion on the People’s Charter?’

we like it!

Nice comment from Barry Kade as well….

Comment by Derek Wall — 15 October, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
There is something dismal about the way in which this discussion is being conducted and I think it’s connected to a pseudo Leninist understanding of revolutionary organisation.

If there is a real debate it should be in the open and if there’s not authoritative figures from either side should say so openly.

Comment by Liam — 15 October, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Liam: a debate about real issues would be genuinely instructive.

I fear the debate in the SWP, though touching on those issues, will be confused and bitter.

All those in receipt of their open letter should take note. I wonder what the final list of signatories was. Martin Smith said
it would be published in the week running up to the lobby of the Labour Party conference. I didn’t see it anywhere.

Comment by Nas — 15 October, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
A critique of the kind of “united front” - in fact popular front - concept that I suspect both sides in this row share, fundamentally.
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/09/24/united-fronts-and-popular-fronts-whats-wrong-uaf

Comment by Sacha Ismail — 15 October, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Andy said “Of course for the brainashed cultist, truth is not what actually happened in the real world, it is what story is convenient for your sorry institutional self-interest; and in so far that what i am saying is inconvenient to you cult it is in your eyes “dishonest” or “lying”

I was tickled by this so for all you ‘brainwashed cultists’ here is the science. Of course its about the Millies and very accurate but its close enough to inform this debate. Enjoy.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

Comment by Christy — 16 October, 2009 @ 1:34 am
156 !! A million miles away from my ‘millie’ experience, where taking the piss out of leading figures (one branch member did a fantastic Taafe impression), and most members seem fairly normal, with a variety of interests outside of party activism. I am going to forward the link to fellow millies so we check each other for brainwashing… Thank you for bringing a smile to me poor thought-policed face.

Comment by Jota — 16 October, 2009 @ 8:32 am
Well, if JR and Co have managed to get a faction up and running then there must be one hell of a split in the SWP. I mean, if Joe Bloggs from Chipping Sodbury SWP branch - and not current or former CC members - and one of his mates wanted a challenge the ruling orthodoxy then the rules would have more of less prevented that from a any likelehood of taking place - eg, not being allowed to talk to people in other branches to circulate ideas and discussion, and the various barriers or numbers etc. I must admit I haven’t kept up with any recent changes but I would be surprised if much has changed from when I was a member.

Even so, it appears the SWP’s curious brand of ‘undemocratic centralism’ will mean there will be a number of casualties which may not be enough to quell the main advance this time. That said, JR and Co would have behaved in the same way faced with serious opposition.

John Moleneaux does seem to have grasped this to some extent, talking about considering permanent factions etc, because let’s face it, if they want to keep their party model in this new fangled world of quick and easy communication, and not easy suppression of info via party bulletins etc, then they will have to do something serious and pronto about the internal culture where open debate is unwelcome, although there have been some rumblings in the last year or so. A culture of toeing the party line without meaningful open debate has a very limited appeal I think. It doesn’t look like they’ve learnt much over the last few years.

Comment by Howard Kirk — 16 October, 2009 @ 9:03 am
# 158 - An excellent reference. Invaluable for the analysis of the (mostly vanguardist) numptyisms contributed to this blog.

Comment by Daveyboy — 16 October, 2009 @ 10:01 am
@142 Barry you said:

I recommended a new left wing news and comment website, updated continuously, and with embedded video.

Now I have nothing against this idea as such and in many ways would like to see such a site. There are good elements to it and also in the longer version you gave in a previous thread. But why do you make an acid test that the SWP implements such a site?

If it’s really such a good idea why don’t you do it? Or why not get Respect or the SP or whoever to have a go? Maybe in partnership with you?

If you’re not prepared to have a go then maybe you’re not quite so confident it would really work. You do not appear to be willing to take that risk. (And it does raise the suspicion that you want the SWP to take all the risk and then fail.)

Go on Barry you have a go. Only then can you say: I told you so. I hope it works for you. Sincerely I do.

Comment by timothyMN — 16 October, 2009 @ 10:10 am
A critique of the AWL: Running dogs of imperialism/ murderous Zionist scabs.

Comment by Uncle Joe — 16 October, 2009 @ 10:34 am
‘I am going to forward the link to fellow millies so we check each other for brainwashing… Thank you for bringing a smile to me poor thought-policed face.’

Hey your welcome! Make sure you all used the same gestures and phrases while your checking.

Comment by Christy — 16 October, 2009 @ 10:55 am
There is something dismal about the way in which this discussion is being conducted and I think it’s connected to a pseudo Leninist understanding of revolutionary organisation.
Is that the discussion inside the SWP or the voyeuristic discussion being conducted here? When you spend more time speculating on the SWP than ever occurs here on what happens in Respect, wouldn’t you be better off checking out a mirror if you want to spot some pseudo-Leninism?

I fear the debate in the SWP, though touching on those issues, will be confused and bitter.
Or you are.
That there is a factional struggle in the SWP is beyond dispute - that’s what happened at the last conference. That’s why the two most prominent leaders of the SWP resigned from the Central Committee. That was a faction fight (which is not a swear word but just a description of what happens in parties). And it hasn’t gone away.
I don’t know about that. The rest of the CC thought the two had made mistakes and most of the party agreed with them. I don’t see necessarily being an ongoing faction fight in the same way as your continual claims that a pro-Galloway faction was going to emerge in the SWP never materialised.

As it happens there were times I wasn’t very active, there were other times when I was very active.
Given the way you relate every piece of gossip you can about the SWP, perhaps some more details would be appropriate.

#165 They offer to kill often, but are all talk and no trousers.

Comment by tyresome points — 16 October, 2009 @ 11:31 am
JJ-lite, above, appears to be quoting at least three individuals (Liam, Nas and Andy, as far as I can make out) as if responding to a single post.
Its not a route to enlightenment.

Comment by robm — 16 October, 2009 @ 11:52 am
RobM - congratulations on being able to count up to three. You certainly won’t need such extensive mathematical skills when counting the Respect MPs after the next election.
I separated the comment into paragraphs to indicate that different people were being replied to. You’ll note that there are two comments replied to in the middle paragraph by the same inadequate. But should you need a guide, on the current listing:

1. Liam #155
2. Nas #156
3. Andy #119

If you’re looking for enlightenment, better stay away from those Tibetan Buddhists, they’re counter-revoultionary separatists, don’tcha know?

Comment by tyresome points — 16 October, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
See, that wasn’t too difficult, was it, Comrade Points?

Comment by robm — 16 October, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I’m not a big fan of the Socialist Party/Militant, but I found the article linked to in #158 apolitical, right-wing drivel.

Comment by chjh — 16 October, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
“RobM - congratulations on being able to count up to three. You certainly won’t need such extensive mathematical skills when counting the Respect MPs after the next election.”

A little bitter, tyresome? Look - give the sarcasm a rest and try to engage in the politics.

Comment by Nas — 16 October, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
http://www.davidosler.com/2009/10/a_pettybourgeois_opposition_in.html#comments

Comment by SSDO — 16 October, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Re the idea of “a new left wing news and comment website, updated continuously, and with embedded video”.
Timothy MN at comment 162 replies:

“If it’s really such a good idea why don’t you do it? Or why not get Respect or the SP or whoever to have a go? Maybe in partnership with you?If you’re not prepared to have a go then maybe you’re not quite so confident it would really work. You do not appear to be willing to take that risk. (And it does raise the suspicion that you want the SWP to take all the risk and then fail.)Go on Barry you have a go. Only then can you say: I told you so. I hope it works for you. Sincerely I do”.

Well, I’m thinking about it - but I have a very busy full time job already. For the idea to succeed it would have a few people - journalists, film makers, web designers - working on it full time, and then a circle of enthusiastic part time volunteers beyond that as a supplement. There are plenty of amateur attempts all over the web already.. I’m talking about a proper popular news / comment site, run by the hard left, but reaching out beyond, to attract thousands of visitors everyday.. One would need a left wing organisation behind it, with enough personnel and finance. So if a substantial pre-existing left org did not do it, then we would need to begin negotiations between the fragments of small left groups and individuals and fundraising etc to start with. But existing left orgs - the SWP or the SP could really do with upping their game on the web now!

Thats the whole point of organisation - some people have achieved getting into paid positions to organise the left, and they have spent years fighting to get into these positions of power within the left, getting onto central committees and the like - and then they just sit their, with no new ideas, or much of a clue. Its one thing to place demands on proper organisations, another thing to ask well meaning individuals to have a go I already have a ‘blog’, and its as amateurish as all the others! But together, we as a collective left could do loads better.

Comment by Barry Kade — 16 October, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
142 Barry Kade “But the Rees / German trend was to attempt to push out and build a general united front - Socialist Alliance / Respect, stop the war.”

And then they kept getting the ice-pick out and doing over their partners. Funny that.

“When I was a party member we always grew best in isolation”

Like mushrooms — kept in the dark with regular dousings of manure.

151 “But the SWP, despite its many merits and those of its members, has long been a machine for maiming revolutionists.”

What he said.

Comment by Capitalist Rhoda — 16 October, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Ah “apolitical rightwing drivel” good you’ll be able to ignore it then, that and looking in the mirror.

It accords very well with my personal experience of millies and milliedom. In fact one of those interviewed sounded like a close friend of mine who was briefly an RSL rising star and a very longterm millie.

I posted it here because although lacking the sons and daughters of toil in the same degree as the millies I thought it relevant to a discussion on the SWP’s current turmoil. You cannot dismiss it with ‘cultspeak’ just because it challenges your worldview. If you want to minimise it take a lesson from Jota above and say with some humour my experience is different.

The elephant in the room of course is summed up by Andy “It does however guarantee paid employment, and big fish in a small pond status, for Martin Smith and his nearest and dearest. So it depends on what your ultimate objectives are in politics, I guess.”

Comment by Christy — 16 October, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Actually, he was quite right to be dismissive of Tourish’s load of old cobblers.

It was moderately amusing the first time I read it some years ago, but its factual descriptions bear little or no relationship to reality and the theoretical framework it uses, such as it is, is fundamentally dishonest.

Comment by Irish Mark P — 16 October, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
“It does however guarantee paid employment, and big fish in a small pond status, for Martin Smith and his nearest and dearest. So it depends on what your ultimate objectives are in politics, I guess.”

I find it astonishing that this line is continually trotted out about Martin, who has on a number of occasions turned down extremely highly-paid offers to work full time as a music journalist in print and on screen.

“Look - give the sarcasm a rest and try to engage in the politics.”

Nas, that’s what we’re doing. I know it must be a bit frustrating for you, trying to appear all reasonable and serious in order to get SWP members to blub about what’s going on inside the organisation. You could always try joining if you’re that eager to know.

Besides, tyresome’s line was pretty funny.

Comment by Uncle Joe — 16 October, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Denial won’t help but if you wish to spend your time in delusional ineffectiveness do carry on. At the end you can say I went to a lot of meetings, I sold (or more accuratley bought) a lot of papers.

Comment by Christy — 16 October, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
“177.Denial won’t help but if you wish to spend your time in delusional ineffectiveness do carry on. At the end you can say I went to a lot of meetings, I sold (or more accurately bought) a lot of papers.”… and helped win a national strike that turned over the BNP, or helped win a council election, got an MP and (in Mark’s case) an MEP elected, or turfed out the right wing out of the PCS or took part in a movement that toppled Thatcher.

For an insular cult we do tend to get about a bit, no?

Tourish’s article is a standing joke in the CWI. I remember being sent it by an Irish full timer when I went full time myself.

The idea that people like Dave Nellist, Terry Fields, Pat Wall, Tommy Sheridan, Derek Hatton, Tony Mulhearn, Janice Goodrich, John McInally are or were brain washed cultists is laughable. As for us full timers, so we work long hours, so what? Lots of people work long hours for all sorts of reasons. I knew people around my way when I was growing up who worked full time jobs and spent every minute of their spare time working for the local Gaelic Athletic Association club. They didn’t even get paid, they just loved doing it because they were committed to the ideals of the GAA and the role it played in the local community. By Tourish’s way of thinking these people would be cultists too.

Comment by Neil — 16 October, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
For the record the SWP, for all the disagreements I have with them, is nothing like a cult or even what the WRP were in their thuggish heyday. The whole article is a red herring for the purpose of this discussion.

Comment by Neil — 16 October, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Tourishe’s argument is based largely based on anonymous subjective memories which are completely unverifiable.MoreoverChristy appears entirely unprepared to accept that it is outweighed by any amount of testimony from exsting or former members of the CWI or even our oppenents. So this seems a rather fruitless argument to engage in.

What I find rather more illuminating is that Christy is prepared to admit to have ‘bought rather than sold’ a large number of papers,which suggests that, probably in common with Tourishe’s ‘informants’, he was a rather weak, duplicitous and sad individual whilst in the CWI. Unlike the overwhelimng majority of the people I’ve felt it an honour to regard as comrades in my 30 odd years membership, even if we’ve subsequently developed political disagreements. I just hope for his sake that Christy has sorted out whatever problem made him behave in this way and feels better for it.

What is however verifiable is that Tourish has got it completely arse-about-face about the subsequent relative size and growth of the entrist and and the majority factions following the split:

‘The CWI reconstituted itself as a new ‘open’ party named ‘Militant Labour’, since relaunched as ‘The Socialist Party’ in early 1997. The evidence is that both groups have since sharply declined, and that the remains of the CWI in particular may now number no more than a few hundred members.’

I can assure you that he’s as far of the mark on the rest.

Comment by paulm — 16 October, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
The comrades at the centre of this must be extraordinarily grateful to Mr.Newman for his sterling work in alerting the world to their plight.

Uncle Joe - thanks for the plaudit. There is a tension in Nas between the desire not to appear utter sectarian about the SWP’s unity initiative at a time when Respect is desperate for support in its last fling for relevance, and his obsessive hatred of the party, which makes any attempt by him to appear reasonable and serious doomed to a short life.

Comment by tyresome points — 16 October, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
tyresome: It’s very clear that your version of unity is to wish the failure of the left in the three constituencies it is best placed to win in. If that is the feeling in the SWP, then it kind of makes a mockery of the open letter (which does not appear to have been published anywhere with its full list of signatories).

If the SWP leadership’s attitude is different from yours, so much the better. The sooner they do something to demonstrate it and the sooner members like you get with the program, the better all round.

Lastly, I think you’ll find that scepticism about the SWP’s “unity initiative” is rather widespread.

Comment by Nas — 16 October, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
No one thinks the SWP open letter is genuine - end of discussion really.

As for Respect - why are they even discussed as anything to do with socialists and the general election, outside of very few areas they don\’t exist and surely socialists should be looking to support fellow socialists in the GE not liberals and self-centred careerists like those in Respect.

Comment by Locke — 16 October, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
It’s the poverty of analysis of those who attempt to smear Militant, the SWP and other socialist organisations as cults that is quite telling here. This accusation is a common right wing trope used as an attempt to discredit the revolutionary left.

In contrast to sectarian snipes and smears about other organisations it would be more beneficial for SU to concentrate on publicising the postal strike and the various anti nazi activities that are happening at the moment.

Even if SU was not partisan it is counter-productive for left unity to speculate publicly about the membership of left organisations. The fact that SU is a mouth piece for Respect makes any attack on the members of another left organisation completely sectarian and against the spirit of left unity that Andy claims to support.

Comment by Ray — 16 October, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Hi Ray

i agree we should be out campaigning in support of the posties and other struggles, as many of us will be doing over the weekend

however, what is going on in the swp? i think part of the problem is the swp had convinced itself and its members that they had ‘made it’ to the big league, they were the only game in town. so after the respect debacle, the rank and file of the swp and its leaders have since seen this year major strikes, particularly at lindsey and visteon, linamr and vestas, two of these lead by the socialist party, which apparently was ‘finished’

this must be demoralising. it is also bizarre the way your debate is being conducted at the moment - it must be a strange internal situation at the moment.

previous posters are right, the ‘open letter’ was not aimed at the left or the wider movement but at the swp itself, to try and convince its own people that they were big movers and shakers on the left. unsurprisingly after respect, the socialist alliance, the appeal for unity has fallen flat on its face. this in turn i would argue has caused further questionning, why is that no one has really bit on our open letter?!

im still waiting to hear an answer on how many members of the cc / nc who now oppose rees fought against the turn to respect? any takers?

fraternally

Cain

Comment by Cain — 16 October, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Re the question of ‘cultish’ dynamics in left groups and sects.

Think the Tourish article is overblown.

But has a slight grain of truth. All far left groups have a cultish aspect, without actually becoming proper cults with brainwashing techniques, etc.

The cultish dynamic is always controlled by the experience of actually leading movements of the working class. Being ‘out’ in the class counters tendencies to becoming a cult. Substantial groups with some class implantation like the SP and SWP have most chance of escaping the cult dynamic.

But on the other hand, the situation of isolation, and being in a tiny minority group with different ideas to the majority can lead to cultishness. I recognise some cultism from my experience of being in a small, sometimes isolated SWP branch. Lots of pressure is put on people not to leave and to remain ‘in group’. I think left groups do often exhibit the dangers of ‘groupthink’ and heresey hunting which inhibits democratic discussion and practice. sometimes good working class labour movement people have been repelled by our cultish dynamics. But this is not always happening, and their are other experiences. I think cultism is something we should recognise and always try to overcome, rather than dismiss as simply impossible on the far left.

And of course, religious cults and sects have a different dynamic… they have esoteric and otherworldly doctrines. We have a materialist worldview, which is more down to earth, - and we have to understand and relate to social and political events in the real world - and reach out and influence them… which is very different to the ‘withdraw from the outside world’ dynamic of religious cults.

Comment by Barry Kade — 16 October, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
An interesting article in the current isj from john molyneux on Party Democracy

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=586&issue=124

Comment by up the posties!! — 16 October, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
#186

Barry is correct here. Tourish’s argument is a bit like a horoscope, in that horoscopes are written so that they are sufficiently general that everyone will recognise some truth in them.

When you read Touish, the behaviours described are superfically similar to a lot of the behaviour in left groups, but there is a deductive falalcy to therefore assume that all left parties are cults.

Nevertheless, the type of structure and ideology of vanguardist parties, can lend itself to forms of group identity that are innately susceptible to cultism - hence the degeneration of various groups into sectism.

It is importnat to note that if you strip out the particular section from Tourish’s artucle that relate to Leninism, then his description of a cult pretty much applies to any and every voluntary organisation, from your local budgerigar breeders club to the women’s institute. The particular danger for Leninist groups is their concept of political and ideological homogeneity, which can form a social barrier to evidence based judgement, and lead to regressive problem shifts, where aspects of reality and well founded theories are rejected in order to keep the core ideology of the group intact.

So it would be a mistake to dismiss out of hand the tendency for any small highly activist group to develop cult like dynamics; and inded eprhaps for some members to be susceptible to cultish thinking even if the organisation as a whole doesn’t consciously encourage it.

Bt at the same time, any political group that genuinely works in a collaborative way with others, and is open to exchange of ideas can resist the pull towards cultism.

Comment by Andy Newman — 16 October, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
It has been scientifically proven that it is much easier to brainwash intellegent people because they engage more.

Perhaps this is why the SWP just doesn’t have the numbers.

Just as well the class are thick eh?

Sorry i’m doing it again, I’m off the wagon again, sorry!

Comment by Brian Cant — 16 October, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
“I see they’re still twittering:

http://twitter.com/Counterfire”

Not any more - “# This account will be closed at 13:00 GMT on 16th October 2009. Thanks to all for your interest in counterfire.org 4:12 AM Oct 16th from web “

Comment by external bulletin — 17 October, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
do we know for sure that Counterfire was being run by the Rees grouping? i would think so to be honest

Comment by Cain — 17 October, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
following on from 191 - how is counterfire any worse than lenins tomb or any other blog run by an swp member.

it linked to sw and articles about the movement. whats the problem?

Comment by Cain — 17 October, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Let’s note that the debate is about anti-fascist work not student work. In fact to be more specific the divide at Party Council was over the No Platform position. The majority claim to uphold that position, which John Molyneux wishes to amend, as against the Rees led minority who claim that the majority has revised its position. In other words we have three ‘tendencies’ two of which claim to hold the same position. Curious…

For my money Molyneux is correct but his position does not abandon the No Platform viewpoint which I believe the majority and moinoprity have misinterpreted. The documents of both Rees and the majority are anodyne however and little is to to be gained from reading them.

Comment by neprimerimye — 17 October, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Nas, your bluster about the open letter is bullshit. As you’re no doubt aware, the SWP has been having discussions with several organisations and individuals on the left about electoral alternatives. Respect was one of the organisations.

Comment by Jackie Collins' Existential Question Time — 17 October, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
jceqt: what are you talking about? The SWP has invited some people to a meeting, but it remains to be seen whether anyone will go.

Martin Smith may be telling the troops that the SWP is a player because it’s “in discussion” with others on the left. But this is somewhat disingenuous. Maybe you’ll remember the one from Smith a year ago about him being in serious discussions with John McDonnell about an electoral initiative. It’s Walter Mitty stuff, I’m afraid.

And perhaps you could tell us when the final list of signatories to the Open Letter will be published, as Smith said it would be.

Comment by Nas — 17 October, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
“We will publish a final list of people who have signed the open letter in Socialist Worker in the week running up to the demonstration outside the Labour Party conference in Brighton on 27 September.” - Martin Smith, Socialist Worker, 1st August 2009.

Also, Nas is right - Smith was going round before saying that the party was about to get involved with something serious with Mark Serwotka and John McDonnell. Talk of the SWP having serious “discussions” after the open letter are a joke. Certainly, some conversations took place, and it became very clear very quickly that the SWP didn’t want to call a conference but wanted others to call it so that the SWP could “intervene” in it and not have to be responsible for ultra-left groups taking part.

The party didn’t even bother responding to the responses to its open letter (there weren’t that many, to be honest, but people didn’t even get responses to letters or emails chasing up the letters - no replies, despite people asking for further discussions); the party also didn’t even bother sending a representative to the already-functioning “left unity liaison committee” in June.

Given that prominent SWP members are posting about how they clearly hope for the demise of Respect, I think we all know how seriously to take the SWP’s noises about “unity”.

Comment by external bulletin — 17 October, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Ok ok nas, any united left with the swp in it is doomed to failure, I got what you’re trying to tell us.

Comment by Bells — 17 October, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Any ‘united left’ with or without the SWP is doomed. Fuck electoralism.

Comment by neprimerimye — 17 October, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

13 October, 2009

RIFT IN THE SWP OVER STUDENT WORK?

198 Comments »

Leave a comment