SWP - ANOTHER EXPULSION
Alex Snowdon, who writes the Luna17 blog, reports his expulsion yesterday from the SWP:
I was expelled from the Socialist Workers Party today, following my disputes committee hearing in Newcastle this afternoon. I joined the SWP in October 1992, shortly after my 14th birthday, and have been a member without interruption since then.
I have been suspended from the SWP for the last few weeks. The basis of the expulsion is, incredibly, ‘factionalising’. The Central Committee’s case that I was guilty of ‘factional behaviour’ rested on two private emails between members.
My suspension, disputes committee hearing and now expulsion are, fundamentally, political affairs. They stemmed from a series of political and strategic differences that have opened up within the Socialist Workers Party since about a year ago.
Instead of addressing these differences through open and democratic discussion – in a tolerant and respectful atmosphere – the national and local leaderships of the SWP chose to turn them into a disciplinary matter. Rather than engage in principled and political debate they embarked on a course of personal vilification, principally but not exclusively focused on me.
Is this what democracy looks like?
At a series of internal SWP meetings in Tyneside, a small number of members adopted an extremely hostile attitude to me and conducted discussion in an unpleasant and personalised manner. When a number of us raised concerns with the National Secretary about this conduct he unequivocally backed the most dogmatic leadership supporters. He excused even the worst excesses of their behaviour.
The situation was made worse in September when the individual most responsible for the personal vilification, and suppression of debate, was appointed full-time district organiser. This was against the wishes of many local members (including some who, politically, support the leadership). He set out to crush any internal criticism. He also continued to re-orient the party away from political and practical engagement with others on the left and in the movements, towards an increasingly sectarian ‘Party first’ model.
The Central Committee refused to countenance even the mildest of criticism of the new organiser, and instead attacked those members who dared to speak out against the mounting authoritarianism. The CC’s insistence on persisting with my disputes committee – in the face of growing evidence demonstrating that I had done nothing wrong – was a clear sign of its position.
I was suspended on the same day - 13 October - that the Central Committee was notified of a formal temporary faction, Left Platform, which I had helped initiate. The suspension was timed to prevent me participating in pre-conference debates. It followed the suspensions of two other supporters of Left Platform four days earlier. We were all accused of ‘factionalising’, an absurd charge in the circumstances.
Political perspectives
As I noted above, the use of disciplinary proceedings (on the back of a sustained campaign of slander against me) has been motivated by differences over political perspectives and strategy. The CC failed to produce a single scrap of evidence showing misconduct on my part, exposing the politically motivated nature of the whole vilification campaign. Leading members, at national and local levels, have simply been unwilling to tolerate the criticisms levelled by some of us.
Tony, my closest comrade in Tyneside, and I articulated our views in a lengthy document last December. We wrote an article for a SWP internal bulletin in April, and I wrote a contribution to another bulletin in May (these were the two internal bulletins produced in the run up to the SWP’s Democracy Commission conference). A number of positions have remained consistent for us, placing us in opposition to the trajectory of the SWP leadership.
The perspectives document of Left Platform offers the best and most up to date explanation available. In summary, there are three crucial issues: the SWP’s response to the recession, the relationship between the SWP and Stop the War, and the question of how to build the SWP in an era of frenetic campaigning activity.
The economic crisis has not triggered a significant revival in class struggle. There have been green shoots of resistance, but no generalised fightback. It is vital that socialists relate to the industrial resistance – strikes, occupations etc – that does take place. SWP activists have done this with a degree of success, and will continue to do so.
But this obviously isn’t enough. The crisis has been not merely economic but political and ideological too. It is essential that socialists respond to the crisis in all its dimensions, operating in a political not syndicalist manner. Yet the SWP leadership has shifted away from what we call a ‘political upturn’ perspective, adopted in the aftermath of the Seattle demonstrations and then 9/11, and therefore weakened our capacity for generating a dynamic political response to the crisis.
The abandoning of the political upturn stance – which acknowledged that political radicalisation, evident in anti-capitalism and the anti-war movement, outstripped any industrial revival – has been accompanied by an abandonment of the united front method. The banal ‘turn to the class’ – a phrase justifying the downplaying of the movements and a lowering of the political level we function at – is thus accompanied by a ‘turn to the party’. This appeals to conservative elements inside the SWP, who believe the united front orientation ‘went too far’ and we now need to focus on ‘branch building’.
The united front depends upon revolutionaries being willing to work constructively with others, attempting to shape strategy and tactics in wider movements of resistance, and gaining a larger audience for revolutionary socialist ideas in this context. The failure to build any united front response to the crisis has resulted in two parallel phenomena: accommodation to more right-wing forces, and a lapse into ultra-Left sectarianism.
This was illustrated by the Brighton demo on 27 September, which was far too small: built as ‘Rage Against Labour’ (dictionary definition ultra-leftism) one minute, promoted as a moderate protest led by the union bureaucracies the next (accommodating to the right). What was missing was any united front operation worth the name, which would have enabled the SWP to initiate a far bigger mobilisation and laid the basis for a stronger Left in the longer term. As a result the Right to Work Campaign has remained a SWP front.
Stop the War is the best experience we have of utilising united front strategy successfully. Despite this – and regardless of the deepening crisis around Afghanistan – the SWP leadership has systematically downplayed Stop the War as a political priority. It has wrongly juxtaposed it to the economic crisis, suggesting it is somehow an either/or choice for mobilising, when we should be pursuing both vigorously and finding ways to connect them.
Stop the War is not only politically central, due to the integral place of the ‘war on terror’ in contemporary capitalism (and the crisis of the system), but on a purely pragmatic level it offers a large pool of highly political and radical activists. The movement is simultaneously broad and radical, its activist core being generally anti-imperialist. Its protests and meetings are still amongst the largest political events to take place in this country.
Finally, the issue of party building is shaped decisively by the factors already outlined. The currently dominant idea – that we need to re-focus on ‘branch building’ after a period of emphasising united front work – is a misguided view shaped by broader political perspectives. It is influenced by a combination of two ideas: we should respond to the economic crisis as the SWP, without also initiating broader formations, and it’s time to retreat from routine participation in Stop the War.
This approach is evidently not working, judging by recruitment figures, branch meeting attendances, etc. Instead we ought to be re-committing to the united front method and applying it to the crisis as well as the war. In this context we can build the SWP.
That means adapting some of the ways in which we do things, being more creative and flexible. We have to transform how we use online tools, develop more imaginative formats for public meetings, and focus far more on organising interventions in campaigns during our branch meetings.
It also means a concerted push for recruitment – not as an increasingly isolated party, juxtaposing itself to the movements, but as an interventionist organisation comprised of the best activists. The crisis of capitalism, the ’long war’ and the growth of the BNP demand a response from the Left better than that which we have seen so far.
Sadly, this sort of thing is all too common in the sects and grouplets that comprise the revo left, who behave like confessional sects, with more in common with religious cults than scientific, Marxist organisations. SWP/SPEW et al, all have this approach to internal democracy and dissent. I really do despair sometimes…
Comment by H. — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
What a bunch of garbage.
I think it’s a shame Comrade Snowdon won’t get a chance to see the SWP vote down his, thus left platform’s, ludicrous perspectives.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Glad you’re up and about and feeling better now, Andy.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Thanks Kris #3
I am not out of the woods yet, but feeling a bit more mobile
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Yes Andy I was a little worried by the swine flu episode. On this particular post I have to say that I find it quite incredible that those who refused to learn any lessons about their past mistakes, up to and including regarding any talk of a problem with a lack of democracy and accountability, should now seek to blame these mistakes on those who opposed their disasterous course, and, incredibly, start talking about democracy. Its something of a surreal spectacle but will no doubt be discussed and voted on at conference. Rather then continue with attempting to wreak an organisation because most of its members won’t agree, I very much wish that those who have clearly developed very different politics to those of the majority of us would find a way to seperate amicably.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Regarding post 2:
MRD, if Comrade Snowden’s perspectives are so ‘ludicrous’ then why was he expelled without having had the opportunity to put them to a vote? Surely the newly-’democratised’ SWP leadership wouldn’t have any objections to hearing his ‘ludicrous’ perspectives and putting them to the membership at the annual conference if you’re so confident that they would be voted down?
Or is it that, yet again, an activist’s ideas have proven to be inconveniently at odds with those of the leadership and so the activist in question had to go, preferably without being given the opportunity to put their ‘ludicrous’ perspectives to the membership?
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Or could it be, yet again, ludicrous assumptions made about the SWP without the benefit of any knowledge?
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
#1 Once , at least 10 years ago , it was probably mildly amusing for WW to call the Socialist Party ‘ SPEW ‘ , but after the many thousandth time i would have thought it fails to amuse even the most hardened sectarian - however on your point , when do you hear such stories about the SP compared to these regular events in the SWP?
Comment by sheffielder — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
I’m a former member of the SWP, KrisS. I’ve also known a great many former members, most of whom left for similar reasons to my own. I wasn’t expelled, I simply quietly left ‘the party’ and moved on to other campaigns, but I’m well aware of the SWP leadership’s habit of finding reasons to remove members they deem to be a problem.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
what will happen after the conference period is over? will those in the rees faction have to dissolve their platform, or be expelled?
from people i know in the swp, and i trust them, they say that this is hitting members hard, demoralising them. i’m not surprised
cain
Comment by Cain — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
#8 - I think some are so hardened they forget that it’s a childish dig.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
#6
The perspectives have been put to the membership.
I’m in agreement with johng. This Left Platform factional (farcical?) debate shall hopefully be heard, voted on and then leave it from there. I’m afraid that Comrade Snowdons wails if ‘democracy!’ are rather soiled by his nostalgia for ’strong leadership’ of the recent past.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
# 9 Without any knowledge of this particular situation, I meant.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
mrd
any answer to my point of what will happen to the left platform once the conference period is over?
fraternally
cain
Comment by Cain — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
This is one of the reasons I left the SWP, a lack of all-round internal democracy and a willingness by the leadership to arrange the expulsion of those who disagree with it too loudly and too often.
I have no regard for the Rees faction or the current leadership, personally, so I’m not partisan for either side in the current wranglings that seem to be causing such internal strife, nor do I wish to bang the drum for either side either. But it seems to me that expulsions (not an irregular occurrence when I was a party member) seem to be conveniently thrown at internal dissenters rather than those who commit some grievous sin that might actually justify their being drummed out.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
It is expulsion if the platform does not wind up after it is ( inevitably ) defeated at conference - so , unusually in this case , a high profile member of the SWP will be expelled - recent expulsions of Rees supporters are just warning shots.
Comment by sheffielder — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
I agree with johng, suggest any party members who are interested (quite frankly I’ve better things to do with my time than engage in childish kremlin-watching) contact a central committee member if they’d like an explanation as to why alex has been expelled, rather than have this bollocks posted up onto a public website in uttlerly undemocratic fashion. alex of course has the right of appeal to party conference, but i doubt he’ll win many friends behaving like this (except the kind of friends you really wouldn’t want, such as mr newman).
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
#15
If the comrades adhere to democratic centralism and are voted down as Im 99% certain they will be… well, they should go by the rank and files decision. Not much else to say or argue on that point.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Its little wonder the SWP is falling apart in many towns and cities - the SWPers I know are now inactive and just “get the paper” as they put it.
Comment by Locke — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
seems bizarre that yuo are only allowed a faction for 3 months of the year though!
alex has obviously committed a heinous crime by your book - what did he do?
cain
Comment by Cain — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Comrade Watermelon, how is it ‘undemocratic’ to plead one’s case before the left as a whole, rather than simply allow the leadership to continue booting people out behind closed doors? After all, as a now-ex member of the SWP, the comrade in question is now no longer bound by any party rules or regulations, so surely is free to plead their case in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
The idea that this is aimed at breaking dissent in the SWP is ridiculous. The left faction has about 60 supporters, and its arguments are in the current IB. What would be the point of expelling one supporter up in the North East? A much more plausible explanation is that he was actually disrupting the workings of his district. The fact that he’s belly aching about the whole thing on the internet and still trying to undernmine the SWP in the North east within hours of being expelled reinforces that in my view.
Oh and we’re not falling apart in many cities and towns, it just ain’t so. Locke may know some older members who are less active (I’m an example) but there is a healthy layer of new members, many students. Some will of course leap on that and tell us that the students know nothing, they’ll all leave soon, its a revolving door yada yada…
Comment by swp member — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
so if there was a reason why he was expelled perhaps you would like to tell us what it was.
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Why on earth would we want to do that?
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
actually swp member
we can see with our own eyes hat is happening around the country with the swp.
Comment by Cain — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
It looks like Stalinism is alive and well and being fully employed within in the SWP.
What are the SWP leadership so afraid of in not allowing debate of ideas and political differences within their organisation and resorting to administrative and personal attacks to crush democracy?
I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. Alex and friend are best off out of the SWP.
Comment by Henry — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Comment 22 is indicative of the ind of attitudes that made me first question my membership of the SWP and finally decide to leave altogether, I’m afraid.
Not being members of the SWP any more, expelled or former members are free to discuss whatever issues they wish, with whoever they wish, in whatever medium they wish. Once someone is out of ‘the party’ then ‘the party’ no longer has any right whatsoever to dictate to them about anything at all. The fact that some SWP members seem to think it does is, to me, indicative of an anti-democratic and authoritarian culture within the SWP and is also worryingly cultish, in my opinion.
The last part of the comment, referring to the latest batch of student members and the ‘revolving door’ is equally worrying, in that, despite these criticisms having been around for a number of years now, they still haven’t been taken on board and engaged with, nor even, seemingly, do many SWP seem able to accept that these criticism might have a basis in fact.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
the students know nothing, they’ll all leave soon, its a revolving door
Comment by prianikoff — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
yada yada…
Comment by prianikoff — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
to avoid it appearing the result of legitimate political differences within the organisation and therefore control freakery on behalf of the CC ……
Comment by sheffielder — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
to post #23
Comment by sheffielder — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Derek - I’m not in the North east so I don’t know any more detail than is on Alex’s blog. The control commisiion that deals with these issues in the SWP reports to our national conference where its report gets voted on, and Alex can appeal there. However slagging off the local organiser within hours of being expelled suggests to me that he doesn’t plan to.
For those who think he was expelled for disagreeing, what about the other 59 Left faction ppl?
Comment by swp member — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Well I can’t help you there, I’m afraid - beyond, of course, what’s already been made clear, about alternative views being put to conference, for members to decide. Other than that, I’m against conducting disputes business in public.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
To #30.
One’s already been expelled. Another two have a hearing bext week. Another has been threatened with suspension. And so it goes on.
Comment by anonymous — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
17 - Keith - How is it undemocratic to post this on a blog and discuss it?
Comment by Steve — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Are any of the original disciples left?
The International Socialist people who hawked a paper called ‘Socialist Worker’ in the early 1970s?
Comment by Hogan Burke — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
so if there was a reason why he was expelled perhaps you would like to tell us what it was.
I suggest you ask him if you’re so deeply concerned (as if!). The party is a democratic organisation, so this will be communicated to the membership, and conference will take a view whether or not to uphold the decision of the control commission. that it the very basis of internal democracy, and i’ve no interest in anyone who is tryin to subvert that.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
so, Keith. How is it undemocratic to post and discuss this on a blog?
Comment by Steve — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Henry at 25 above: “It looks like Stalinism is alive and well and being fully employed within the SWP”.
For almost its entire history, in every country where it has operated, the Trotskyist movement has gone in for purges, expulsions and splits on a spectacular scale.
The cults around various Trotskyist leaders would make most Communists - at least since 1956 - blush with embarassment if they were to occur in their so-called “Stalinist” parties. The absence of inner-party democracy in the SWP and other Trotskyist and semi-Trotskyist organisations in Britain and elsewhere would not be tolerated by the memberships of most CPs today.
At what point are Trotskyists going to face up to and accept responsibility for the anti-democratic characteristics of their own tradition, and stop trying to shuffle them off onto “Stalinism”?
Comment by Party hack — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
because, steve, who is and is not a member of the party and our internal workings is a matter for the party. is it fair on the members of the party to see this posted up on here before the democratic debate on the matter has taken place in the organisation? any sympathy any members of the party may have had with mr snowdon will have been wrecked by this; one can only assume he has no intention of appealing against this and so has decided to do as much damage as possible instead. that’s why what he’s done in posting this up is dishonest, undemocratic, sectarian and destructive.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
There seems to be a choice within the SWP to either accept the CC line, quit or be expelled if you speak out too loudly and too often for the CC’s liking.
Which is pretty counter-productive, as members of long standing with years of work and effort invested in the SWP are not easily replaced except with people of less experience and knowledge. It’s also counter-productive because, as I’ve previously stated, former members are no longer bound by any party rules and thus are free to discuss their time in the party with whoever they wish and by whatever medium they choose. It’s also far more likely that a disgruntled and angry expelled member is going to do that, rather than one who had their views heard fairly and then decided to leave of their own accord.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
that’s why what he’s done in posting this up is dishonest, undemocratic, sectarian and destructive.
Erm, unlike expelling him?
Comment by Watery Keithmelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
The SWP is such a vile, undemocratic and deluded organisation. Luckily I realised this when I was about 17 and left shortly after and became a libertarian communist.
Trotskyism clearly has many similarities with Stalinism. They both come from the same seed of Bolshevik authoritarianism.
Good luck to this comrade. Hopefully he will come to realise that vanguardism is always a dead-end strategy.
Comment by Kronstadt — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Regarding comment 40:
Dishonest? That’s for you to prove, Comrade Watermelon. You’ve made the charge, you’ll now have to back it up with some evidence if you want it to stick.
Undemocratic? You’ve been asked repeatedly, and have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer, as to why someone who isn’t a member of the SWP should be bound by some vow of silence about their time in the party.
Sectarian? Which rival sect or grouping (of the myriad that are out there) is Comrade Snowden seeking to promote over the SWP, pray tell? Having read the original article, I don’t recall the comrade exhorting an electoral vote for any of the SWP’s political rivals, nor for people to join other groupings or, for that matter, to leave the SWP.
Destructive? How can open and honest debate, where everybody can have a chance to be heard nd their arguments dissected, be destructive?
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Exactly Watery. And the reality is that the SWP members are only ever likely to find out via forums like this. Or is Andy allowed to circulate his version of events to members with equal access to the resources of the leadership? The conferences democracy and debate do not necessarily go hand in hand. They are more often than not a matter of endorsing what the self promoting leaders decide. Why so afraid of open and democratic debate?
Comment by Steve — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Erm, unlike expelling him?
He’s been expelled by a democratically elected control commission, with the full right of appeal to conference, the sovereign body of the party. That’s about as democratic as you can get. Democracy does not mean doing whatever the fuck you like with no consequences; discipline is a central part of democracy. but those people on here expressing ’solidarity’ with mr snowdon, have no interest in democracy inside or outside of the party, they see it as an opportunity to damage our organisation in their own sectarian interests. i’m sure alex must be thrilled with his new bedfellows.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
And when was the last time either conference or the control commission actually heard a successful appeal or rescinded an expulsion, pray tell? And is this control commission a similar body to the one that sent expulsion letters to members of the nti-fascist squads while they were in prison, hmmm?
Personally, my interest in democracy outside the party (and the seeming lack therein) was a pivotal reason in my deciding to leave the SWP. And, personally, I have infinitely more interesting things to do with my time and effort than becoming the SWP CC’s idea of ‘Dr. Evil’ and demolishing it either. Oh, and seeing as I’m one of those people who is ‘expressing ’solidarity’ with Mr Snowden’ (who, incidentally, I’d never even heard of before today) and I want to hurt the SWP for my ‘own sectarian interests’ (perhaps you could be kind enough to list my ’sectarian interests’, while we’re on the subject), perhaps you’d care to explain why, given that I’m not a member of any political party or grouping and thus have no rival agenda to promote nor grouping to recruit for, I’d be so keen on doing that.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
That democracy commission has obviously done some fantastic work. Is it any wonder the SWP is shrinking when you look at the comments from SWP’ers on this blog…
Comment by Chris S — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
He’s been expelled by a democratically elected control commission, with the full right of appeal to conference, the sovereign body of the party.
He’s been expelled, Keith. One would have to assume that he’s no longer particularly bound by party discipline, no?
By the way you’ve made a great deal of allegations (’dishonest’ etc) about Alex without offering the remotest bit of substance. Just dark hints about the ‘real’ reasons for his explusion. Now, unless you know something we don’t - and if you’re not on the disputes committee, or indeed Alex himself (both seem unlikely), you don’t - perhaps you should drop this self-puffing silliness?
Comment by Watery Keithmelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
re 43 - that would be an excellent point if the swp was actually shrinking…
Comment by swp member — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
It is, everyone can see.
By the way, why is factionalism such a crime?
Comment by Chris S — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Ah, I see alex has the support of the weekly worker. He must be thrilled.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
I’m not in the SWP, and quite frankly don’t agree any more with the faction than I do the leadership of the SWP. However, as someone active in the North East of England I work alongside many people within the SWP. The comments about the organiser here are absolutley true. He is a bully, which most political activists can not stand to work with, as he does his best to intimidate people who disagree with him. It’s no wonder that ALL of the Sunderland branch and some of the Newcastle branch have gone into the faction, just to oppose this control freak. He is the sort of person that authoritarian parties like the SWP will always breed. Either way though, the SWP and the vast majority of the left are irrelevant to the working class people anyway. If the faction wanted to achieve something, it should actually go into working class communities instead of uni campus’ for a change.
Comment by NorthEastActivist — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Keith is absolutely right. None of the critics of the SWP on this thread have given any reason why Alex Snowdon should not have been expelled. Since Snowdon hasn’t bothered to state the official reason for his expulsion, and none of the would-be scourges of the SWP know it either, the entire discussion is nothing but faux outrage and hot air.
Since we dont’ have enough information to have a worthwhile discussion about Snowdon’s case, it is worth asking instead what should be the general principles governing expulsion. In my view, when individuals go beyond the faction, organizing and briefing against the Party or otherwise disrupting its work, they should be kicked out.
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Support? Questioning why “factionalism” is such a crime is not support. I do have sympathy for a committed socialist who has obviously spent many years building an organisation to be kicked out because he has a different opinion to the leadership clique. Why is factionalism a crime Keith?
Comment by Chris S — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
who is the north east organiser, would his name begin with Y?
Comment by Cain — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Does anyone agree with me that the title “control commission” has a lovely ring to it.
Comment by Armchair — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
A general question: has anybody ever, in the history of Leninist politics, formed a faction and called it the “Right Platform”?
Comment by Francis King — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Keith Watermelon, who so completely supported the leadership over the last lot of expulsions, over the split, over the turn against Rees, making the same smeary sneery comments then as he is now. Hidden behind the comfort of an unaccountable name, he talks of democracy. What a larf! Thank fuck the xxxxxx still employ people capable of this kind of spin.
Andy, sometimes if it looks like an expulsion without the right to representation and serious recourse to an appeals mechanism, quacks like an expulsion without the right to representation and serious recourse to an appeals mechanism and smells like an expulsion without the right to representation and serious recourse to an appeals mechanism, it *is* an expulsion without the right to representation and serious recourse to an appeals mechanism. People aren’t even given the chance to see all the evidence against them and prepare a case. You call this fair?
Do you really believe that everything is equal here? In the next few months the leadership will continue to spread misinformation about Alex, and it will ensure that delegates for conference will have been primed to vote its way. During conference 2008, Pat Stack (fucking shame on him) said that the fact that Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman and Nick Wrack chose not to appeal esentially proved that they had no case. Except that Martin Smith had already admitted by that point that his key point of evidence against Ovenden and Hoveman - emails from foreign comrades who had, he said, complained about Ovenden “denouncing” the party - didn’t even exist. Stack knew this, because it was he who informed Ovenden and Hoveman that the evidence didn’t exist. He also had been proved to have lied about emailing Ovenden and Hoveman. But nothing happened to him. Why not, Andy? Why did some people get expelled for allegedly breaking the rules, yet Smith was allowed to lie about the evidence he used?
Still, the party was right and conference endorsed the expulsions.
Can I ask - when was the last time conference voted against a Control Commission decision?
When unions and bosses do this, they talk of the right to appeal. We all know it’s a sham.
But somehow, despite all living in the same world as those unions and bosses, the SWP membership is uniquely immune to the same pressures.
Comment by inter-alias — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Francis King- didn’t Bukharin’s faction in the 20s call themselves the Right?
Comment by Armchair — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Jonathan/Keith - holding the principles that you do, do you think that Rees should have been expelled over the ‘dodgy cheque’ scandal, the use of the bourgeois press and organisation of the press conference that split the TH Respect group etc?
Comment by Steve — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
The idea that those in the SWP who are still wistfully reminiscing about the Respect project represent some kind of “Left Platform” is as ridiculous as the communalism and political opportunism that the SWP rapidly jettisoned once Galloway had given them the big heave ho.
Equally farcical are the more recent pronouncements of the SWP rump. They ‘left’ respect due to its right-wing communalism, and now wish to focus on their long-term love in with the Orange Order/LibDems/Tories/Labour (otherwise known as the UAF). Could it get any weirder?
Stuart
Comment by Stuart — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
Steve
No, I don’t. There is a categorical difference between committing errors (including very bad ones) and organizing against the Party. Rees conducted himself with great rectitude from the end of the 2009 conference until the launch of the Left Faction, which is a legitimate platform until the end of the 2010 conference.
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Armchair has a point - Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev were indeed part of a bloc known as the Right Opposition though I am not sure how much the designated themselves. Lenin definitely described himself as being on the right wing of the party during Brest Litovsk and then again after Kronstadt.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
yeah there is nothing always wrong about being on the right of an argument or always right about being on the left of it in terms of the history of ideological disagreements in revolutionary organisations.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
I am not sure that Zinoviev and Kamenev were ever aligned with the Right opposition in the CPSU, which was more famously Tomsky, Kalininin, Chicherin, Rykov and Bukharin. Zinoviev was if anything an even more incorrigible leftist than trotsky.
Closer to home, there was at one a time a Right Opposition in the IS, was there not, who bizarely were the historical antecedents of today’s RCG and Spiked on-line.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Jonathan - they weren’t simply errors though were they? I agree with you about the rest of what you have written. Rees was certainly used as a scapegoat and his ousting is entirely unprincipled.
There does seem to be a basic lack of democracy throughout the SWP. Expulsion after expulsion of dissenting comrades and the impossibility of open democratic debate in the party, conveniently in the run up to conference. Any notion of thinking outside of the leadership line is dealt with in a bureaucratic manner and members are bullied and conned into agreement by their managers.
Will the members ever find out what happened to Alex? I doubt it.
Comment by Steve — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Andy - as far as I’m aware, they weren’t an officially declared faction, but were given the name by the party majority.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Steve - what mechanisms would you suggest?
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Steve
The disputes committee will explain its decision(s)in the pre-conference bulletins and again at conference. Alex (whom I don’t know) seems quite capable of speaking up for himself but he has not enlightened us as to the official reasons for his expulsion.
Obviously, I disagree with your wider point, since there are plenty of dissenters who exist quite comfortably within the organization. They may not dissent radically enough for your liking, but they have a voice. What they don’t do is organize against the Party. ‘Expulsion after explulsion’ is something of an exaggeration. We are talking about a handful of people over the past year or so and that’s it.
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
I don’t think Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky et al. ever called themselves the right, did they? They didn’t even call themselves a faction or platform. It was Stalin who did that for them. Generally, in the peculiar asymmetry of left-wing organisations, the right like to call themselves the “realists”. At least, that’s the term I’d prefer…
Comment by Francis King — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
#60 “Zinoviev was if anything an even more incorrigible leftist than trotsky.”
Was this the same Zinoviev who supported a coalition government with the Mensheviks in 1917 and continued to call for it some time afterwards?
An incorrigible leftist? I don’t think so.
Also, it shouldn’t be forgetten that Bukharin, in line with his later pro-Peasant positions, was an open Leftist on the question of the Brest Litovsk Treaty, calling for a revolutionary war and publishing an oppositional journal called “Kommunist”.
Of course using, the SWP’s party-building methodology, both of them should have been expelled.
Comment by prianikoff — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Hidden behind the comfort of an unaccountable name, he talks of democracy. What a larf! Thank fuck the xxxxx still employ people capable of this kind of spin.
Admin, please remove this comment in its entirety. i don’t take kindly to having my job put at risk.
[the very vague refernece to government employemtn had been removed, but you are being melodramatic for effect]
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
KrisS - perhaps some accomodation for differing views and debate through the paper - I mean substantial debate, not printing the token dissenter . A website perhaps were discussion can take place. In instances such as this then equal resources given for a case to be made for the comrade facing expulsion. A healthy and democratic regime would be able to maintain this.
Jonathan - I am aware that Alex can speak for himself, although not with the same resources as the leadership. When he has done so however he has been called undemocratic!
Has anyone ever successfully appealed against an expulsion?
Comment by Steve — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
You want the party as a whole to debate any dispute? I doubt we’d be up for that. I know I wouldn’t.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
#71
fair point Francis, i see what you are getting at.
The term “Right Opposition” was indeed coined by Stalin and his supporters in the regional conferences in the lead up to the Sixteenth Party Congress in April 1929.
The Chicherin/Rykov faction described themselves as the “moderates”. Yo are also correct that they were bending over backwards to avoid breaking party discipline over factionalism.
Inceidently, the incident which consolidated Stalin’s power, and broke the modereates was a prpvocative and stupid piece of sectarian factionalism from the Trotskists, who produced a leaflet in Moscow in 1928 with details of a converstaion ebtween Bukharin and kamenev, that the GPU used as conclusive proof of factionalism by te moderates.
this was the immediate trigger for Trotsky’s exile, and for Stalin to go on the offensive, crucially driving a wedge between Kalinin and Voloshinov and the rest of the moderates.
The only winner of this was Stalin, and yet the Trotskists justified this catastrophic tactical error by claiming they were throwing a spanner in the works to prevent Stalin collaborating with the moderates.
What amazes me, is that when you study this period in deatil and see the vain, narcissistic, stupid incompetence of Trotsky and his supporters, in a situation where he actually could influence events, why do people assume that he is a good guide to what socialists should have done in Germnay or Spain, where his supporters were in no position to do anything about it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
“vain, narcissistic, stupid incompetence of Trotsky and his supporters”
You have’nt been reading that robert service again have you andy? Did you know the man used to also eat his pet rabbits?
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
#72
“An incorrigible leftist? I don’t think so.”
As you well know, in the crucial peroid 1926 to 1929, Zinonviev was disastrously leftist, particularly on international affairs
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
you’ve removed the name of my employer, thanks. now please remove my name as well. it should be blindingly obvious why those of us employed in various industries have to operate under pseudonyms
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
#77
So JohnG, can you defend publishing a leaflet, the inevitable consequence of which was to split the moderates, strengthen Stalin’s hand?
And the Trotskyists did indeed justify it, as they saw Stalin as having comon cause with them in the struggle against the moderates.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
#79
Don’t be such a pillock.
I don’t think any employers are going to be interested in tracking down people whn all they have to go in is thet they are called “Andy”.
Get over yourself.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Not so sure about that, Andy. I might suggest that the scissors crisis had a major impact with the mass demonstrations in the major cities and the revival of the slogan ‘Soviets without bolsheviks!’. Tactical errors are inevitable but only important when they happen at such moments - meaning it was an excuse.
Stalin’s ‘consolidation of power’ in 1928/9 was highly temporary in nature. By 1931, he was on the defensive in the central committee as the requisitions and famine started to destroy the countryside. Between 1932 and 1934, there was a period known by historians as the ‘Moscow spring’ (Cohen in his biography of Bukharin uses the term) when Kirov and the moderates weakened Stalin to the point of bringing Bukharin back from his internal exile at the Commissariat of Heavy Industry (scientific section). In this period, Stalin felt a serious threat and retreated from the purges.
On December 1st 1934, Kirov was assassinated and Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev framed. Stalin really did consolidate power at this juncture and the terror began in earnest in late 1936 with carefully selected targets, becoming more random and arbitrary in 1937.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
shall we think 2009 comrades?
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Have you ever been victimised Andy? Look what happened to Mark Anthony France recently, and many more over the past. There is no such thing as being too careful.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
it is true that trotsky thought the main danger was with the bukharin faction not the stalinist centre, which was one of the main reasons that the softer wing of the LO, radek and pyatatov most famously, went back to stalin after he broke with the right and started his left course manouvere. Trotsky’s position was to back stalin against bukharin as he thought the bukharin faction represented the bigger chance of thermidor in russia. Of course the right faction behaved quite atrociously with regards to the expulsion of the trotskists and zinovites
Comment by ryutin — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
#82 and #83
Derek has very good point.
We should postpone fraternal disagreements about when Stalin consolidated his power, and how it could have been prevented until another time
Not least because I still don’t feel well and am likely to be more fractious than usual
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
I think Trotsky’s belief that the moderates represented the main vehicle for capitalist restoration with Stalin concieved of as a kind of centrist likely to compromise with them reflected a failure (understandable really at the time) to understand that the counter-revolution would not take the form of the restoration of a private capitalism, but the state becoming a collective capitalist. Despite the fact that the writings of Hilferding, Bukharin and Lenin on imperialism demonstrated that there was a tendency for state and capital to merge, I think, on balence its probably not fair to criticise Trotsky for not anticipating something so unprescedented (especially as the final outcome was shaped by changes in global political economy which had still not happened).
And especially as you’ve had the opportunity to familiarise yourself with the theory of bureacratic state capitalism and STILL FAIL TO UNDERSTAND comrade (NB..a joke comrade).
Despite this mistaken perspective I think its equally mistaken to imagine that the moderates would have ever done anything but fall behind Stalin eventually. So I don’t actually think the mistake was of any huge consequence. The die was cast. The physical destruction of huge chunks of the old bolshevik cadre not to mention the disapearence of millions of much more ordinary people was already assured. Even though it was probably inconcievable for even any of the participants at the time.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
I often comment on Lenin’s approach to wildlife conservation, generally this is inappropriate, get well Andy!
Incidentally we had to infect you, to keep the green respect cooperation moving through yesterday’s conference, hope you don’t mind.
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
#87
” think its equally mistaken to imagine that the moderates would have ever done anything but fall behind Stalin eventually. ”
Except that the moderates represented an entitely different course, but I really think this is a debate for another day.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Well done Derek, just leave the umbrella at home, mate!
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Steady on, Derek, if people stopped being interested in 1917 and its aftermath, I’d be out of a job. But that whole story has very little relevance to British politics in 2009, other than providing a partial explanation of why the left is so fissiparous.
Comment by Francis King — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
So what is it we were supposed to be discussing again?
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
‘92.So what is it we were supposed to be discussing again?’
We are supposed to be discussing what a frightful bunch of bounders and cads the SWP are.
They truly are appalling.
Comment by anon — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
True, they are awful.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Yep, we’re the baddies
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Maybe we should all expel each other?
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Good idea Kris. We should all join several organizations and test the expulsion threshold in each.
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
The first thing you ought to do is expel that guy Leon Trotsky. He sounds like a total bastard.
Comment by redbedhead — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
I just KNEW that one day I could get this unity stuff right. It was just a matter of asking the right question.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
RBH - but who should expel him? Where would his allegiances lie today? Naturally I have my own views on this.
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
What about Joe Stalin? Andy seems to know him quite well. We could ask him. I’m sure he’d do it.
Comment by redbedhead — 15 November, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
This Lenin character seems to have a fair bit to say for himself, lets expel him now.
Better safe then sorry n all that.
Comment by ben — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
On “Right Platform” - it was, I think without looking up references, in 1922 that Lenin proposed to Trotsky the formation of a ‘right platform’ in the Comintern, an abortive proposal since they succeeded in winning a majority for the united front policy without forming a platform. Actually the “Left Platform” as advocated by Alex Snowdon here looks like a prima facie justified “Right Platform” against the sectarian / Third Period build-the-party turn of the SWP …
… or would do, but for Rees & Co’s role in first suppressing political differences, and then making an utterly pointless split, in Respect, conduct still not honestly accounted for by this platform.
On Trotskyism, bureaucratic centralism and unjustified splits - frankly, the Maoists have done just as badly and the CPB hasn’t done that well since its creation (Chater & Co … and how come Ross, O’Neill & Co weren’t let in when they wanted in?). Since the old CPGB had (Russian) state backing, producing a strong centripetal force on members, it is not a good comparator for the splits of far left groups without the same underlying basis for loyalty.
Conversely, the French, Italian and Portuguese Mandelite-version Trots seem to have done slightly better than any part of the Brit left in avoiding bureaucratic suppression of dissent and pointless splits (that does not, of course, mean avoiding all splits; and “slightly better” does not mean perfect).
Comment by Mike Macnair — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
#97. I tested the expulsion threshold in an organisation once. I was expelled.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
You win. Now, is there a prize?
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
As a senior MI5 officer, I am very interested in tracking down the Marxist mastermind known to the world as ‘Keith Watermelon’
It is now clear he has infiltrated Her Majesty’s public sector and poses a clear and present danger to the security of the Realm.
Let the witch hunt begin!
Comment by Economic League — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
I’ve no idea who this expelled SWPer is or whether he’s been treated fairly or not.
But the question was asked several times as to whether an expelled SWP member has ever won an appeal and it’s not been answered yet.
So how about it SWPers?
Also, do people think “democratic centralism” can ever function fairly and democratically? Or is is time this organisational method was ditched?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
#107 Yes - but you wouldn’t expect me to name names.
Comment by PW — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
This has become a depressing thread.
Respect seems to have had a fairly upbeat conference in which a significant minority presented their views, with some persistence it seems, and were unsuccessful. Been there, done that.
Life moves on and I hope the non aggression pact between the Greens and Respect is successful in giving each the best chance for a clear run. The case for voting for either party in their key constituencies cannot rest, as is implied in some posts, on their possessing a certificate of working class purity and socialist rectitude. It rests more on simple fairness.
Given the desperately unrepresentative nature of the FPTP voting system democratically-minded voters shpuld give them a vote. Any voices in parliament that break with the tweedle dee, tweedle dum consensus that binds the three biggest parties wlll help create a better climate for political debate.
The minority in Respect, in my view, might find that they can act as a bridge between more consciously socialist forces - both within the unions and the Labour Party and outside of the Labour Party. Respect has played a key role in holding a big section of Muslim opinion in Britain in alliance with a wide range of progressive political forces and these links need to be maintained. This is not simply an internal question for Respect but demands a careful and non-sectarian approach by other progressive forces.
There is little in the conduct of the main Green personalities that suggest British Greens are likely to follow the German or Irish Greens in allying them selves to the main right wing parties. This is because the position of Britain as a principal imperial power tied to US foreign policy gives little room for compromise on the principles that most honest Greens hold dear.
The reception given to Andrew Murray of the Stop the War Coalition by the Respect conference points in a more productive direction. Where there is substantial agreement on policies and campaigns we should find the best basis to work together. And if this finds an electoral expression that is inclusive, or at least does not involve unproductive conflicts, then we all beneifit.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
#104 - what were your crimes?
Comment by Jonathan — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Come on Nick lets not get off the subject of the SWP falling apart - its what we love on this site.
Comment by Locke — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
I think that what has happened to Alex is absolutely outrageous and if he wants any help with a “SWP Witch hunt - defend the Three Campaign”. Then I’m his man…
Comment by John Gray — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
This makes what’s going on in Unison look like a tea party.
Comment by Pablo — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
god this thread is ironic. I’ll leave it there.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
On the question of unjustified splits and divisions Mike McNair (103) argues that ‘the CPB hasn’t done that well since its creation’. He implies that the Russian (surely he means Soviet) connection exercised a strong centripetal pressure.
Weird reasoning. On the contrary attitudes to the Soviet Union were a source of considerable conflict in the CPGB. And its dissolution followed from the dissolution of the USSR.
The development of the CPB has followed a path almost completely at variance with the conventional trajectory of splits and expulsions that so characterises the ultra left. Even communists who opposed the early creation of the CPB have found their way into its ranks (in a unity project led by the late Ken Gill) not to mention numbers of activists from even earlier divisions.
The CPB seems to have developed the art of drawing people together and where political differences have proved too difficult to overcome the odd handful have quietly slipped away without provoking anything other than an occaisional pained letter. It even managed to replace a general secretary without raising a flutter.
That is not to say that substantial differences do npt exist on a range issues. These questions concern all on the left and the whole of the working class movement. They demand a resolution but no single tendency has the answer in the absence of a substantial move by big sections of the working class and a reflection of such a change in the direction taken by the main trade unions.
In the absence of such a move there are objective limits on what any progressive party or group can do do. This applies to the Greens and to Respect as much as it does to any of the more strident contenders for working class leadership.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
#111 Aren’t your hands full trying to scrape the barrel for votes now your friend Jim Fitzpatrick has decided to insult the Muslim community who used be the backbone of his support?
Comment by rachel trickett — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
This may appear perverse but I not in favour of the SWP falling apart. I don’t agree with its ideological orientation and I think its historical analysis is fatally flawed.
But it contains a whole host of hard working and honest people who are play an important part in staffing labour movement and anti war organisations.
Its present difficulties seem to me to arise from an inevitable conflict between a sectarian impulse derived from its historical development and its bizarre state capitalist theory on one hand and the logic of its more recent orientation to the mass movement and to anti war campaigning.
My experience in the trade unions and the anti war movement suggest that elements in the SWP heirarchy are uncomfortable when their leading people in the unions and the movements follow through the logic of alliance building. An element would rather retreat into a comfort zone of newspaper sales and ‘party building’ where thoughtful engagement with the real world is not necessary and where the Cold War foundations of their ideas remain uncontested by real life.
Both these things are, of course, important but not to the exclusion of real living links with masses of people in struggle. If, in the course of their internal convulsions, the SWP loses this connection then they will not be the only ones to suffer.
Of course, I hope that their future trajectory is one that takes them more deeply into productive unity. And if that proves impossible I am confident that a substantial cadre of their people will remain in activity to the benefit of the movement as a whole.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Nick Wright
Thanks for your thoughtful comment about Respect’s conference.
I agree with pretty much all of it.
One question we did discuss, however, should be factored in to your post.
George, Salma and the leadership of Respect clearly placed us in the camp of outright opposition to a Tory government.
I believe that’s critical to aspiring to gain an influence in the wider labour movement.
Those who talk about class politics but think our analysis should be along the lines of “Labour are scum, and no different from the Tories” are going to have a problem connecting with wider forces.
It’s simply dishonest to claim to be the coalition builderd while exc oriating Caroline Lucas and refusing to locate yourself as part of the broader labour and trade union movement.
And I predict it will be a short-lived and unlamented failure.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
63: ” Rees conducted himself with great rectitude …”
Having put the “wreck” into rectitude, how apt.
81: “Get over yourself.”
I think you’ll find that’s, “Get over yourself, girlfriend”!
84: “Have you ever been victimised Andy?”
“Do it to Julia. Not me!” They don’t like it up ‘em, do they?
Comment by Capitalist Rhoda — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
#59 During conference 2008, Pat Stack (fucking shame on him) said that the fact that Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman and Nick Wrack chose not to appeal esentially proved that they had no case. Except that Martin Smith had already admitted by that point that his key point of evidence against Ovenden and Hoveman - emails from foreign comrades who had, he said, complained about Ovenden “denouncing” the party - didn’t even exist.
Hmmm. That might explain something. At the time when my organisation criticised the British SWP’s conduct in the Respect split, the owner of Lenin’s Tomb made some dark hints about “I’ve got a pretty good idea where the NZers are getting their information”. I had no idea what he meant at the time, but now perhaps he means that Ovenden and Hoveman were briefing us. That didn’t happen, though. No-one cared what we thought on the issue before we made our own tentative conclusions!
Comment by Daphne — 16 November, 2009 @ 12:03 am
There is a certain irony in the fact that John Rees was the one leading party member to openly question the setting up of the Democracy Committee, and that his Left Faction had not a word to say on issues of party democracy in their lengthy contribution to IB2. The Left Faction’s protests over this and other recent suspensions would have been more persuasive if they had had something to say on party reform. The Left Faction is in essence a vehicle for Rees, German and Nineham to regain some kind of powerbase within the party and offers little by way of an alternative political direction. However SWP comrades should defend its supporters when they are being unfairly attacked by bureaucratic means.
Comment by red mole — 16 November, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Not a single person in this thread is a member of the SWP in Newcastle. Snowdon was acting antagonistically to the party. He acts like he’s a good party member complaining about this that and the other but never went to branch. How can he possibly expect to play a part in how the branch functions if he doesn’t turn up. The guy’s a loser and an internet activist.
Good riddance from a part-time Newcastle comrade.
Comment by 01rorlin — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:11 am
“However SWP comrades should defend its supporters when they are being unfairly attacked by bureaucratic means”
Well yes obviously. At the moment, as far as I’m concerned, thats a very big if.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:22 am
Alex knows exactly why he’s been expelled. His document is front to back obfuscation and dissemblance. He and his gang got caught red handed. They have to deal with it.
The “discussion” in this thread is badly informed sectariana.
Comment by Jackie Collins' Existential Question Time — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:44 am
As far as I’m aware Alex hasn’t posted this here, Andy has so we can’t blame him for that. Yet it is a shame that his argument doesn’t give concrete examples of what he complains about. If, as he claims, he is concerned about the SWP’s united front work he fails to mention the amount of work the SWP has contributed to the anti-nazi campaign. This work has been ongoing and is bearing fruit as is evident in the recent large protests outside the BBC and against the SDL in Glasgow.
As much as I would wish a rise in the anti-war movement this is not actually happening. The recent anti-war demo of 10,000 was a good turn out but does not indicate a resurgence of the levels the anti-war movement reached in the past. It is then quite odd for Alex to claim that the SWP or anyone on the left for that matter should make the StWC the focal point of activity. This is especially strange during a period when the postal workers, tube and train workers etc have been striking or balloting for strikes. The industrial perspective appears much more of concern to workers and as such should be a priority. The two areas of work aren’t mutually exclusive but emphasis has to be given where it is needed and that doesn’t appear to be the anti-war movement or the campaign against globalisation at the moment.
Whether a united front tactic is required on the industrial front is another matter. It’s not very useful forming a united front with Labour and the TU bureaucracy if they are the ones attacking or suppressing industrial activity. That doesn’t mean we can’t work with certain members of Labour and the TU leadership when they are willing to fight. Alex needs to explain why a turn to anti-war work is called for by giving concrete examples of why it is a priority over other work. And an explanation of why he believes the united front tactic will cultivate industrial action will also be helpful.
These debates and more are happening in the SWP in the run up to conference and have been happening long before. That is a good thing but no organisation can move forward with conflicting strategies and it will be a shame if the Left faction can’t come to terms with losing the debate which is inevitable because their perspective is flawed.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:28 am
A conundrum…
How can a faction be formed without “factionalising”?
And since it is impossible to form a faction without “factionalising”, shouldn’t all those who have formed the faction also be charged with “factionalising” and be likewise expelled???
Comment by Heavy -handed bureaucrat — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:49 am
#116 Sorry - my reference was to the pretend left John Gray in #112!
Comment by rachel trickett — 16 November, 2009 @ 8:05 am
You couldn’t make it up. On the link above he says he was expelled because:
QUOTE
I have been suspended from the SWP for the last few weeks. The basis of the expulsion is, incredibly, ‘factionalising’. The Central Committee’s case that I was guilty of ‘factional behaviour’ rested on two private emails between members.
QUOTE
So is he saying that sending emails to one another is factionalising. Well, this has been the cornerstone of SWP’s undemocratic practices. People are not allowed to openly - even if they are SWP - members with people outside their branch. Which basically means you don’t stand much chance of getting a faction together. I would like to know how JR and co managed it. Was it discussed at branch level where they found agreement and went from there? Telepathy?
This is highly amusing stuff. I mean. An email. I would say to Alex don’t worry. There are more ex-members of the SWP than there are members. And it’s nice out here.
Comment by Howard Kirk — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:09 am
as flawed as the ‘left faction’ perspective is, and i wouldnt trust the arrogant rees as far as i could throw him, the turn to the class branch building strategy is pure poison and should be resisted it can only lead to more of the same - a stifled cultish sect obsessed with itself that will only work with others on its terms - and that means many good socialists in the swp directed by a clique from above, a clique which can hardly be said to have a record of either good judgement or consistency
Comment by ryutin — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:35 am
#110. Supporting a rival left organisation.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Except of course this interpretation of the turn to the class is entirely a figment of the imagination of the left faction. The notion that there is an opposition between united fronts and building branches is a very peculiar one. It rests on a conception of a few hyper activists running around being brilliant. And is precisely a cultish, secty and elitist strategy (as well as being impossible to carry through).
What might be called the Febuary the 15th re-enactment society want to blame the laziness of SWP members for a) the consequences of their own behaviour which they refuse to recognise and b) objective changes in the world which mean we (none of us) actually can carry on in the same way.
There is also the disturbing fact that real debates about how to deal with these changes are being subordinated to the trivia of what seems a fight mainly about whether they should be on the CC or not. Which is a disservice to the United Fronts we ARE involved in (including StW in my opinion, which the SWP certainly don’t want to downplay: but its foolish to imagine that the operation today can be exactly the same as in 2006).
The great irony is that setting the terms of debate like this completely inverts the problem (on almost everything from bureacracy to democracy, and much more importantly the relationship of the SWP to the movement). Its they in reality who want to substitute the SWP (or rather themselves) for any proper united front.
It is not at all true that the SWP is turning away from United Fronts or the Movements. We just don’t think the ex-leadership of the organisation have recognised problems they were partly responsible for, and in failing to recognise this, they also fail to make any analyses at all of changes in our objective circumstances.
This does no service to the SWP (increasingly their whipping boy) or indeed to the movements themselves. Its a bizarre situation and will hopefully be resolved at conference. Difficulty is they seem incapable of recognising democratic decisions regarding their eminance in the organisation as a kind of divine right. It ain’t so I’m afraid.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:19 am
What might be called the Febuary the 15th re-enactment society…
you’re right. big demonstrations and a popular campaign are the last thing any of us need right now.
Does this mean we’re in a downturn?
Comment by Watery Keithmelon — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:45 am
What a joke Alex snowden is, I agree with 01rorlin, Alex snowden NEVER came to newcastle branch meetings, EVER. I am in newcastle SWP district and all the c.c did was act on the concerns of its branch members (which is part of the democratic process), the overwhelming majority of whom felt Alex snowden was extremely destructive to the branch and it’s cadre members, the party is growing in the north east with branch meeting tripling by size of which alex snowden had had no part in. He acted selfishly and without accountability to the party. Good riddance.
Comment by simone — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:46 am
er so your trying to say that recognition that the situation is not the same as Febuary the 15th reflects a desire not to see big demonstrations? The complete loopiness of this response is rather bears out my argument I think. Nostalgia is not political perspective.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:51 am
And again this crazed desire to paint any opposition to this refusal to discuss reality as a ‘return to a downturn perspective’. The substitution of sloganeering half truths for a proper political perspective, is disgraceful enough, but particularly galling is the willingness to destroy the entire organisation if they can’t lead it. Sorry. But most will not agree to this bizarre auto de fe.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Well said. Expel’em!!!
Comment by bill j — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:10 am
er so your trying to say that recognition that the situation is not the same as Febuary the 15th reflects a desire not to see big demonstrations?
i’m sure youd love to see them, in much the same way you’d love to see a revolution.
Are we in a downturn now? only if we can’t expect big demonstrations and mass political campaigns any more perhaps we are
political downturn, industrial upturn?
Nostalgia is not political perspective.
quite
Comment by Watery Keithmelon — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:20 am
SWP Another Expulsion
And I expect the first since 2007.
Comment by Anonymous — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:22 am
As can be seen the kind of responses you get are so irrational that its very difficult to construct a rational response. That comrades have had to put up with this ridiculous and bitter bile for such a long period of time is one reason why there is now very little patience with this crew.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Apparently they are the only proper revolutionaries and disagreement with them is an indication of a lack of bolshevik rectitude. You get the point about secty, cultish etc. These are, believe it or not, the only arguments they have.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:45 am
#131: Full marks to johng for hitting the nail on the head.
The hypocrisy of Alex Snowdon is breathtaking. Only a couple of weeks ago I had the misfortune to read a painfully turgid article on his blog, written very much in the style of a barking young apparat, in which he accused John Molyneux of breaking with Leninism for even suggesting that there had been any democratic deficit in the SWP. As a loyal Reesite he proposed instead that all that was lacking was dynamic, fearless leadership which, I’m sure, he’d be prepared to offer at the drop of a hat if we asked in a nice enough tone of voice.
I’m heartened that the SWP leadership are now finally starting to deal with the clique around Rees - it’s fifteen years overdue but it’s a start. Having been expelled from the SWP myself I know that the procedure is hardly fair, but to hear Snowdon suddenly start squealing about it now the heat is on him made me laugh out loud. The faction he supports have been at the centre of a culture which for years has treated not only other members of the SWP but the entire left as fodder to their plans, schemes and rackets. It was this clique that detonated the SWP relationship with Respect while the rest of the SWP had to deal with the bitter fallout. Not content with a fuck-up on such a monumental scale they continue to claim for themselves the right to lead the SWP despite the fact that their politics have been shown to have failed utterly and completely. The rest of the SWP appear at last to be swinging into gear to try to rectify this and put their party back on course. Good luck to them.
Other aspects of Snowdon’s document are tantamount to scabbing, but I don’t want to go into details or say anything other than to observe what a pompous rat the complainant is. Having said that, he’s of no consequence generally - anyone who’s been around for a few years will be more than familiar with his brand of toy bolshevism. But it will be interesting to see what happens to the royal family themselves - Rees, German, Nineham - once the left faction are overwhelmingly defeated at conference, which they will be. There is some considerable irony in the fact that the leaders of the Left Faction are likely to be the first SWP oppositionists in decades to get (something bordering on) a fair hearing and be able to take their case to conference, etc. - they themselves would never have allowed such room for maneuverer to their critics. It seems that the remaining leadership have decided to deal with the issue (relatively) openly and democratically. If the CC really did want to quash the Left Faction it would be Rees and German who would have been expelled, not this lowly yes-man. More please…. I don’t say that the problems in the SWP are fixed - far from it - but for an outsider such as myself all the recent moves have been very welcome.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:46 am
It is depressing - but by now not surprising - to note the unpleasant and appallingly apolitical manner in which some people conduct the debate. #141 is the worst example (’tantamount to scabbing’?!), but there are others. Those who are hostile to Left Platform seem incapable of rising to the challenge of calm, rational discussion about the issues. Hence the disciplinary attacks on me - as well as Clare S and James M, who face hearings this weekend - and the culture of hysteria and vilifcation surrounding them.
When you don’t have the arguments you lash out, call people names, pretend it’s all about ‘personal conduct’, paint criticisms as fuelled by bitterness or some psychological defect. It is a sign of weakness when people resort to this approach.
In my own case all attempts to raise concerns and criticisms were stamped on ruthlessly. The same is true for others in my district. This creates a culture in which any real democratic discussion becomes impossible and some members increasingly feel excluded.
It is clear the leadership - backed by much of the old cadre - is determined to drive some of us out. It is telling that the National Secretary was willing to use printouts of private emails in a disciplinary hearing - he was less willing to explain how they had been obtained. This sets an atrociously low ethical standard, to go with the ever-lowering standards of political discussion.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
“is clear the leadership - backed by much of the old cadre - ”
lol.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
#142 This creates a culture in which any real democratic discussion becomes impossible and some members increasingly feel excluded.
You’ve only just noticed it. It’s been like that for decades. The post at #141 is correct. John Molyneaux was only saying what is pretty obvious to those who have left over the years. Having read the Pre-Conference bulletin, it seems now that the SWP has accepted a great deal of what he said. Yet your expulsion does appear to be more of the same.
Comment by Howard Kirk — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
I just can’t get over this complaining about the lack of politics whilst at the same time doing nothing but throwing up old political slurs, which serve as a substitute for engaging with anything anyone says, rather then engaging with peoples arguments. For those who didn’t get it, the reference to the ‘older cadre’ reflects the endless re-running of a perspective from the bloody 1990s which seems to have been adopted, preserved in aspic, by the left faction. Young dynamic leadership being held back by honourable old but battered cadre who fail to understand the new possibilities and therefore are “conservative”. I think the argument had a point at one time. But it is 2009 now. Could anyone put another record on?
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
#142: regarding “tantamount to scabbing” you know precisely what I mean, as will others capable of reading between the lines, and this is not the place to discuss it. Certainly your comrades in the North East will recognise the extent to which you are playing with fire. On this matter I advise you to pipe down.
More generally, though, I stand by every word of my comments. I have no qualms about striking a personal and unpleasant tone when addressing thoroughly unpleasant persons, and as someone who is no longer bound by SWP discipline I can speak without restraint. Do not conclude from this that your reception within the party at large will be much different.
Reading the Left Faction documents it is striking precisely how essentially apolitical they are, dealing not with changing circumstances but with gripes based on nothing more than an unfailing belief in the perspicacity and brilliance of those CC members recently relieved of the burden of leadership - entirely democratically - by the bulk of SWP members. I also note with some amusement that in the most recent documents they are reduced to whining about private communications being used against people in order to discipline them, and (with regard to the Mutiny conference and the suspension of two of its organisers) in defense of independent cultural-political initiatives by the membership. These points are hilarious to myself as someone who was expelled for wanting to set up an independent magazine, and since at my Control Commission hearing a key piece of evidence was a letter I had written in a private capacity that was leaked to the CC. In both cases it was Lindsey German who led the case against me (saying, eg., that the party would only allow independent initiatives if they essentially controlled them - yes, really, she said that the reason, eg., Redwords was allowed to exist while I was to be expelled for wanting to launch a similar effort, was that “if we told them to stop they would do so, but with you we think you won’t”)
I can only conclude that her whining in recent documents about precisely the same treatment of her acolytes is contemptibly hypocritical. I hope your faction is crushed - out in the open, with the agreement of the vast majority of SWP members who by now are utterly fed up with this particular style of self-important, chest-beating substitutionism and grandstanding. I personally got sick of that tone of some time ago - and with particular reference to the same individuals who are leading your faction. Yes, the SWP has its problems, but the Left Faction represent the quintessence of them and have nothing to offer by way of solutions.
If you want know what the political arguments are, I refer you to the document produced by your own CC in response to your faction. I particularly liked the Shakespeare quote, which you might like to chew on for a while.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
What I think is ironic is that the left platform are so bloody 1980s. The reality is that whilst its true that the push outwards was good, sections of our leadership proved incapable of breaking with the worst habits of that period and therefore destroyed their own work (whilst other comrades, some of them young and some of them old) proved very adept at united front work, of both new and old kinds: and then had the bloody rug pulled out from under our feet. Part of the purpose of the democracy commission and the perspectives discussions this year is to ensure that we learn these lessons. This the leadership of the left faction are resolutely opposed to. Its why for many of us watching this blogdom stuff is like entering some kind of crazy hall of mirrors.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
johngy: talking of avoiding engaging with what people say, have you seen this: http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/gameboy-debate-me-please/
Comment by Paul Ross — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Rees has form when it comes to instructing others to do his dirty work for him. While I sympathise with the nature of the expulsion it’s difficult not to be struck by the irony that JR’s group is getting what they’ve been dishing out for years, way before the Respect debacle, even.
I do hope that Alex is doing this off his own bat and is not foolishly following hints, winks, nudges and other barking from on low. They don’t care about you, you know. What is it I heard Rees say about SWP members not in his elite? “Not one of us.” I think it was the smirk that went with it I found most disturbing.
Comment by Capitalist Rhoda — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Why would I Paul? I have no desire to engage in a debate with someone who thinks it fun to heap lies and slander on the head of recently deceased socialists. In an earlier thread I’d made a contribution and pointed out that it was rather extraordinary that no-one was capable of responding in a normal way. It was not an offer to debate with Jim Denham.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
What’s happened to the comrades in Birmingham who were also ‘under pressure’ or suspended from the party?
Comment by Locke — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
It all reminds me of a line by Bertolt Brecht:
“We who wanted universal kindness/
Could not ourselves be kind.”
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
“When you don’t have the arguments you lash out, call people names, pretend it’s all about ‘personal conduct’, paint criticisms as fuelled by bitterness or some psychological defect. It is a sign of weakness when people resort to this approach.”
Indeed it is, and it is unfortunate that such behaviour and cliquish denigration attends such expulsions.
In the interests of the wider unity of the movement that’s all I have to say on the matter.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Kevin
How are those of you who were expelled from the SWP organizing within Respect? Do you still consider yourselves to be Leninists?
Comment by Jonathan — 16 November, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
“Kevin
How are those of you who were expelled from the SWP organizing within Respect? Do you still consider yourselves to be Leninists?”
Good question. It goes to the heart of why certain comrades have been expelled. It’s a political decision (regardless or whether one sees it as right or wrong) yet those who have been expelled prefer to characterise it as a clash of personalities or character assassination.
I doubt that anyone would confuse Kevins approach to working with the rest of the left at the recent Respect conference with Marxism.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
#152: Brecht
perhaps this, from Francois Villon’s ‘Testament’, might provide some consolation:
“Exiled with strict severity,
Rapped behind with a spade, despite
It all he cried: ‘Appeal, for me!’
– Which wasn’t the height of subtlety.
Oh, grant him now eternal peace.”
Comment by Andy Wilson — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
#155
“I doubt that anyone would confuse Kevins approach to working with the rest of the left at the recent Respect conference with Marxism.”
Really????
Kevin’s basic approach is spelled out here:
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/respect-conference-2/#comment-17499
This seems eminently sensible, based upon a sober and materialist assessment of the current situation, and is totally compatible with the old man himself:
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Jonathan
Many of us who were in the SWP work closely in developing Respect’s strategy and theorising its practice. I can’t speak for everyone, but certainly everyone I can think of considers themselves a Marxist and, it follows, recognises the great contribution of Lenin to the tradition in identifying the centrality of politics to any analysis of the state we are in and of organising in a way that enables a political position to have material force. That entailed immense flexibility.
There are plenty of toy Bolsheviks hanging around for whom the appellation Leninist is reserved only for those who have a dogmatic and ultimately sectarian vision of how Marxists organise. I’d prefer not to go down that avenue.
I see from #155 that some extend that rigidity to consideration of who they regard as part of the Marxist tradition. The idea that tactics, especially electoral tactics, flow directly and uncomplicatedly from principles and that, therefore, a difference over tactics always betrays a difference over high principles is something that has blighted the left for too long. It was rather depressing when this was trotted out as gospel, without demurral, at SWP conferences a couple of years ago.
Funnily enough, there was a prominent figure in the SWP who, since its inception, used to remind us all that so unlinear was the relationship between principles and tactics that the latter could contradict the former. Whether you go that far or not, and there are problems in doing so, it was a lot more fruitful an interpretation of Marxism than the sterile dogmatism that so often passes for it.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
A question to Alex Snowdon:
What do you get out of being the Rees fall-guy? I do find it a little humorous that such a ’strong’ ex-leadership has to get (and no offense intended) party nobodys to publish all his dirty work. The hilarity of the situation is that everybody within and outside the party know that this is JR’s baby yet it looks very likely that he won’t speak at conference. Again.
My partner and I have joked that it’s as bizarre as getting actors to do voice overs for Gerry Adams; can Rees not handle getting up and being severely voted down? Absolutely not! That’s why it’s left to cronies like yourself to, or would have, spieled the line at conference.
I’m still waiting to see whether the faction even makes it to conference if we’re to go by last conference when your ’strong leadership’ bottled their CC slate because nobody wanted it.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Actually what I think is really incredible about all this is that the left faction are arguing, quite contrary to the reality, that the SWP is turning away from United Front work in a situation where many have honest and in some cases dishonest doubts about this. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I do take a pretty serious view of this. The Party is, perhaps thankfully, a little less, how to put it, rigerous. On that note though I really don’t care whether Kevin’s method is Marxist or not. After all, as Barksdale said, ‘bygones be bygones’.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Or as Clay Davis would put it,”Shee-it”.
Comment by tyresome points — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I am still a bit disoriented by them choosing the name “left faction”.
It is fairly hard-wired into the SWP psyche to be (correctly) contemptuous of small groups trying to outflank the SWp from the left., and yet at the rhetorical level that is exactly where they are seeking to position their small group.
I neither know nor care whether they are really to the left of the Martin Smith leadership.
Surely the end-game is that they will fail at conference, and have no where else to go.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Does anybody have a link to the SWP IBs. I no that one was one the CPGB website
Comment by gerry — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Kevin’s contribution to the discussion of left unity quoted by Andy above is certainly “marxist” - certainly in being materialist, strategic and thoughtful, without silly posturing. I feel like I’ve learned something by reading it.
On a side note: I do wonder if when Ian Donovan’s crew are turfed from Respect for being disruptive - whether by formal expulsion or simple exclusion - or he leads his branch in a “split” to join the SP/CPB/Bob Crow group, if Andy will show the same enthusiasm for bigging it up as he has done with Alex’s situation. Will there be a Socialist Unity headline “Another Split In Respect!” or “Respect Drives Out Dissidents!”? Or is this principle of airing the internal processes of groups limited to those other than the ones he is a part of, in particular the SWP. Certainly there was no article about Galloway thoroughly trouncing their pretensions at Respect’s conference.
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
None of my business really, but whether or not Alex’s expulsion was justified, I’d hope comrades would stop piling on. I know it’s common in politics (witness some of the Respect people on the other thread taunting the minority who lost a vote at conference, and celebrating how they’ll finally get rid of them etc.), and it’s not restricted to the left, but it’s just an unfortunate thing to do. Let party discipline do its work, then let it go.
Comment by christian h. — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
“After all, as Barksdale said, ‘bygones be bygones’.”
That doesn’t seem to be the point of Kevins comment in response to Alex Snowdon. Let’s just say that no amount of spin will subtract for the political reasons why comrades are expelled.
“This seems eminently sensible, based upon a sober and materialist assessment of the current situation, and is totally compatible with the old man himself:”
Based on Galloways conference speech which Kevin supports it’s not a Marxist approach to the issue of left unity. It’s just further red baiting rhetoric. Which is a shame considering his support for Solidarity in Glasgow.
Comment by Anonymous — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
#166 was me.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
#166
“Based on Galloways conference speech which Kevin supports it’s not a Marxist approach to the issue of left unity. It’s just further red baiting rhetoric. “
Really??
I have always found Kalr Marx’s tone rather too sharp when addressing socialists he disagrees with tacticaly, especially if asscoiated with minor groups only peripherally connected to the mass organiosation of the working class.
perehaps you know of a more cuddly marx than the one who actually lived
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
“Kevin’s contribution to the discussion of left unity quoted by Andy above is certainly “marxist” - certainly in being materialist, strategic and thoughtful, without silly posturing. I feel like I’ve learned something by reading it.”
If Kevins comment summed up Respects strategy then I’d agree but read wider than that one comment and I think you’ll find a reformist approach rather than a Marxist one. Not that Marxists can’t work with reformists but lets not pretend that Galloway and the SWP parted ways because of a clash of egos rather then political differences.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
“perehaps you know of a more cuddly marx than the one who actually lived”
I’m referring to the political content of the speech not the tone. It’s the very point I’m making.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
#169
“a reformist approach rather than a Marxist one”
??????
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
“It’s just further red baiting rhetoric.”
This level of argument does the issues at stake a disservice. Endorsing Dave Nellist’s candidature; praise for Alan Thornett; recognition of the Communist Party’s strategic role, while pointing out fairly that it has not had electoral traction for half a century; and quoting Marx and Lenin do not add up to red-baiting.
We’ve been through this movie before - and the final reel is not appealing. Robustly refuting the fantasy claims of those who have no appreciation of their weight within society is not a witch-hunt. It is a sharp argument. And it is one that occurred only because a tiny group of people spurned a serious discussion, which gave rise to a flexible policy, and wanted to tie Respect to a form of organising and electoral politics that has failed.
A leading member of the Communist Party received a standing ovation at the Respect conference after making a brilliant, left wing, anti-imperialist speech which outlined a clear perspective for the anti-war movement. The Morning Star newspaper was well received.
It’s just silly to reduce an honest and sharp debate on the strategy for Respect and the left to cries of “red-baiting”.
Worse than that, it is the way to poison relations on the left - as recent experience sadly attests.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Ray - I’m not claiming anything about egos vs political differences. I’m speaking to what Kevin wrote. Why do you think it’s specifically reformist?
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
#164
The SWP are interesting, and has some small but real traction with real world politics. Ian Donovan isn’t and hasn’t.
I wouldn’t run stories that might have a negative electoral impact on a left candidate in an election; and I wouldn’t run a story critical of an SWP member in a leading TU position in a current industrial dispute.
the fact that Alex Snowdon has chosen to do the latter is very poor
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
“The SWP are interesting, and has some small but real traction with real world politics. Ian Donovan isn’t and hasn’t.”
But Respect is and does. Alex, like Ian in that respect, doesn’t particularly.
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
But Andy, Respect definitely has real world traction, just like the SWP. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Comment by christian h. — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
“the fact that Alex Snowdon has chosen to do the latter is very poor”
This I agree with. A very bad and unsupportable move.
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Perhaps I don’t think Ian Donovans’ politics are relevent to respect.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
“Perhaps I don’t think Ian Donovans’ politics are relevent to respect.”
That’s not really the point. People might say the same thing about Alex’s views since they have been unable to muster more than a few votes at party conference and council.
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
“If Kevins comment summed up Respects strategy then I’d agree”
With a slight change of mood and tense, we’re on the same page then. The position I outlined does accurately reflect the policy agreed unanimously at Respect’s National Council and at its conference (I think it was unanimous, but maybe there was an abstention). It also sums up George’s position. It was he who volunteered possible support for Peter Tatchell in Oxford.
What you mustn’t mistake, though, is exactly what this position means. It is about relating to serious forces, and they are sadly few, and positioning Respect as part of the broad labour movement in relation to the Tories. I would hope that the SWP and others adopt a similar course. It doesn’t mean blanket a priori support for any initiative yet to be determined, with candidates yet to be selected and tactics which could prove extremely damaging.
George and Salma have been instrumental in developing this approach and we’ve all gone out of our way at each stage to adopt a flexible approach accommodating a range of emphases. That some people have spurned that and argued for a narrow conception, coupled with ultra-leftism about what a Tory victory will mean, is unfortunate.
They can decide to pour everything into this as yet undefined vessel. We’ll pursue a wider strategy, based, in our view, on an honest assessment of where the movement is at and our real, but limited, impact on it.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
#172 “…Endorsing Dave Nellist’s candidature; praise for Alan Thornett; recognition of the Communist Party’s strategic role, while pointing out fairly that it has not had electoral traction for half a century; and quoting Marx and Lenin do not add up to red-baiting.”
It’s not red baiting, it’s Galloway showing his true political heritage.
He picks and chooses individuals when it comes to Trotskyist organisations.
But has a different approach to the CP-B, which he treats as an organisation.
CP-B member Andrew Murray was invited to speak at Repect’s conference, not Dave Nellist!
Personally, I wouldn’t be too happy to appear alongside Harpal Brar either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuWNlFkrihQ
Galloway’s reaction to No2EU has been amazingly dismissive of organised trade unionists.
The very people that created the Labour Party in the first place!
No democratic centralist organisation worth its salt would tolerate this.
But the SWP almost split apart over it, because they have a bureaucratic adminstrative leadership.
It expels first then tries to provide a poltical argument afterwards!
Sure, its necessary get in there in order to engage in hand to hand combat.
Which is probably why Respect are steering away from a fight with the SP and Bob Crow.
Galloway feels more confident of dividing up the Green Lefts, SR etc. than mixing it with them.
Comment by prianikoff — 16 November, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
#181
“Galloway’s reaction to No2EU has been amazingly dismissive of organised trade unionists.
The very people that created the Labour Party in the first place!”
The very people who support the Labour party now.
this is a false polarisation you are making, because Respect is clearly aligning itself with the mainstream labour movement desire to have a labour rather than tory victory at the general election.
That is, it is Respect who are better aligned with the mainstream of the trade union movement
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Two things. Firstly the claim that NO2EU should not have stood against the Greens because it let in the BNP is mistaken. The polls show that disaffected Labour voters stayed at home rather than voted. The Greens did not appeal to them and neither did NO2EU. But it does not follow that NO2EU were wrong to try to offer a left alternative. Their policies and the political position they presented may not have had resonance but they were correct to stand. I did not agree with the way NO2EU chose to respond to BJ4BW but their attempt to offer a left alternative was important.
I think that Respect are bending the stick too far in the direction of alliances with the Greens and a vote for Labour. Considering that a leading Green member in London sided with Boris Johnson against tube workers taking industrial action this is unfortunate. Despite the claim that these decisions are made on a case by case basis, will the call for a vote for Labour result in Respect refusing to support left candidates it doesn’t consider “credible” even if they have the backing of the majority of the left?
Respect have agreed not to stand against the Greens and visa versa because they want to have a clear field in key constituencies. But this can’t be the basis for a national strategy for the left. There is no commitment to offering this approach to whatever develops out of NO2EU for example because they are dismissed as so-called “toy blosheviks”. The basis for this mistaken assessment is made on the level of votes each organisation received in London. But nationally NO2EU received far more votes than Respect. If the left based its strategy on votes alone then the SLP would be relevant and we would have to concede that Labour must represent the left.
My second point is that to dismiss the SP and their allies as toy Bolsheviks while at the same time denouncing Nick Wrack and other activists in Respect is not conducive to left unity. It’s not the way we need to be relating to each other on the left. And for that reason I see it as red baiting rather than taking seriously what the rest of the left has to offer.
Describing a small but significant section of the left who managed to launch a national campaign during the Euro elections as “toy Bolsheviks” is traditionally the rhetoric of reformists who view the revolutionary left as a threat. If a call for support for the Greens and a vote for Labour is being counter-posed to support for an initiative by socialists and trade unionists then that is not the position of a Marxist.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
“When you don’t have the arguments you lash out, call people names, pretend it’s all about ‘personal conduct’, paint criticisms as fuelled by bitterness or some psychological defect. It is a sign of weakness when people resort to this approach.”
That’s because you were expelled for you “personal conduct” and not your political views. Bye Alex, here’s hoping you dissapear.
Comment by 01rorlin — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
‘will the call for a vote for Labour result in Respect refusing to support left candidates it doesn’t consider “credible” even if they have the backing of the majority of the left?’
I can imagine situtations where a majority of what thinks of itself exclusively as the left promotes a less than credible candidate. The left is wider than a couple of left groups and the head office of the RMT, if it is involved. So, yes - we won’t be tied to what a self-identified “majority” of the far left says is so.
I’m glad we took that view over the Euro elections, particularly in the North West. My understanding was that Socialist Worker took a vaguely similar view as well. I don’t know if it campaigned for the Greens in the North West or not, but it certainly did not make a blanket endorsement of No2EU - quite rightly.
Let’s leave aside the rancour about some in No2EU deciding to stand and ignoring all pleas to reconsider. Surely it must be agreed now that it would have been better all round if the Greens had got 5,000 votes more. If you knew then what you know now, don’t you think you’d have argued for people actively to get a few extra votes for the Greens? It’s not as if the disaster of Griffin getting in was compensated for by a large national aggregate vote or concentration of votes for No2EU elsewhere that brought either an MEP or the basis for victories anywhere in subsequent elections.
‘But nationally NO2EU received far more votes than Respect.’
Comparing like for like, it did not. Respect achieved a higher vote in the comparable elections. But the main point of Respect’s results in 2004 is that they established a concentration of vote, which patient work was able to turn into electoral success.
‘My second point is that to dismiss the SP and their allies as toy Bolsheviks while at the same time denouncing Nick Wrack and other activists in Respect…’
If this was directed at me: I most certainly have not dismissed the SP and their allies as toy Bolshevik nor have I ‘denounced’ Nick. I’ll put this down to a sloppy reading rather than any mischievous attempt to turn a legitimate debate into an ill-tempered slanging match and to poison relations between others on the left. Let’s not ratchet up the heat, but deal with the real tactical discussion.
‘…for that reason I see it as red baiting rather than taking seriously what the rest of the left has to offer’
Ditto. Ray, have you any idea just how damaging it is to bandy about terms like witch-hunting or red-baiting? Please, put them to one side.
How do the weak forces of the left maximise their impact in this election, contribute to the capacity of the working class and various strata to resist a likely Tory goverment and forge deeper connections within a labour movement that is in its majority aligned to Labour? These are the serious questions.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
So nothing’s changed with the SWP then.
Comment by attila — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Kevin, I don’t think Ray claimed you are calling the SP “toy Bolsheviks”. But you can’t possibly have missed the kind of language used by numerous people in the thread on the Respect conference, aimed at comrades in - and outside Respect. This includes expressions of relief to be, or soon to be, “rid of” comrades who disagree etc. Will you step up and ask your political allies to tone it down a bit? (To add: I absolutely agree with your contribution as quoted above. It is in my semi-informed opinion crucial in a fptp system to identify districts were success[not necessarily victory, but a good showing] is possible and concentrate on those.)
Comment by christian h. — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
christian h.
I have missed people calling the SP “toy Bolsheviks” or expressing a wish to be “rid of” anyone from Respect. I certainly do not consider Dave Nellist a “toy Bolshevik”.
In other arenas various people have genuinely asked why anyone who did nothing but denigrate the organisation they are a member of would want to be in it. That’s a fair question.
As for dark murmurings about “driving people out” and the rest, all I’d say is this: we’ve had a sharp and very good debate. The outcome has reaffirmed the course we are on. There is room for a range of opinion and emphasis, as we’ve always striven to maintain in Respect. But there is a high degree of unity and common purpose around Respect’s central objective in the next five months, electing three MPs as our most practical contribution to the growth of the left as a whole.
If people’s primary loyalty is to a different organisation and they believe our trajectory represents a breach of their principles, then they may want to act accordingly, but it is entirely up to them.
No one’s going to force anyone to go anywhere. But neither are we going to bend over backwards to allow people to disrupt what we are doing. That’s not intolerance (no one suggested at the conference voting off the National Committee even those who seem to think that the vast majority of us are unbearably right wing). Adopting the course, which is itself very flexible and sensitive to different views, set by the majority after a frank and democratic debate is not authoritatian, it’s profoundly democratic and pluralist.
So - it’s on to the election and trying to rebuild a left that connects with contemporary realities. And we won’t be diverted.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Ray - I have to agree with Kevin here. One of the strengths of the IST/SWP, I’ve always felt, was it’s attitude towards the rest of the left which was/is to spurn an obsession with the self-identified left and the habit of navel-gazing and hair-splitting that is all too common and instead focus on where real forces are moving - because we understand that change comes through masses of people moving into struggle - not by having perfect programs. No2EU and it’s soon to be successor may make all the pronouncements in the world but the question is what forces does it really represent. I think it would be silly to think that it has shown itself to represent anything - at this point - beyond the usual suspects. And given the SP’s past, sectarian, attitude to both Respect and the Greens, I’d be suspicious.
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
‘the SP’s past, sectarian, attitude to both Respect and the Greens, I’d be suspicious.’
our disagreements with the lewisham greens are not sectarian but based on the reality of our experiences of their targetting decent sitting councillors rather than pilling resources against new labour. In terms of respect, given our history of joint meetings over Lyndsey and calling on our supporters to vote for you - how sectarian! Unless your definition of sectarian is having the nerve to reach different conclusions.
Comment by Jota — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
jota - did you invite them to participate in no2eu and if not, why not?
Comment by redbedhead — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
We didn’t intiate no2eu, just participated, just like nick wrack. We argued publicly and privately for inclusion of any left groups who wanted to be included. Respect then made it clear they didn’t want to be formally involved. Given the limited programme and poor name and late launch this was understable (although we’d argue wrong) decision. As far as gen election coalition goes, respect’s leaders have been condemning our efforts as a deadens as loudly and clearly as possible. This will not stop us calling for a vote for respect or uniting on other campaigns.
Comment by Jota — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Jota
Let’s put to one side what we think each other thinks of our respective interventions in the elections. If you are reciprocating Respect’s support for Dave Nellist, that’s good. Sure, we’ll have different immediate priorities in the election campaign. But we’ll be in a healthy position to assess matters afterwards.
After the debate at the SP conference, I find what you’re saying reassuring.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
#124
“Alex knows exactly why he’s been expelled. His document is front to back obfuscation and dissemblance. He and his gang got caught red handed. They have to deal with it.”
Yes, caught red-handed forming a faction. How exactly are factions supposed to form!!??
Comment by Heavy-handed bureaucrat — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
#133 Simone
“…Alex snowden [sic] NEVER came to newcastle branch meetings, EVER. I am in newcastle SWP district [sic]…”
THIS IS A LIE!
Simone has clearly only been in “newcastle SWP district” for a very short time. Alex only stopped going to branch meetings after the summer when he tired of the personalised abuse & misinformation. So much for Cliff’s ‘memory of the class’ if Simone is that memory!
“…the party is growing in the north east…”
Only one new member was reported last month - and that could have been the ex-organiser who left to join the Greens & then re-joined in order to help give evidence to expel Alex.
“…branch meeting tripling by size [sic]…” from how many to how many?
Comment by Heavy-handed bureaucrat — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Kevin re: your #158, can I press you a little further? Leninism is certainly a flexible practice, but one element seems to me non-negotiable if the term is to retain any distinctiveness (I appreciate that the likes of Zizek might disagree). The distinctive core of Leninism is the proposition that if we are to achieve communism, the capitalist state has first to be overthrown by means of an insurrection led by the working class, itself led by the most militant sections of the class organized in a revolutionary party (actually, that’s two propositions). Do you go along with that perspective? If so, I wonder what it means for the long strategy and tactics of the revolutionary elements of the left in Respect? Shouldn’t they be organizing themselves in a platform or a tendency?
Comment by Jonathan — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
“No2EU and it’s soon to be successor may make all the pronouncements in the world but the question is what forces does it really represent. I think it would be silly to think that it has shown itself to represent anything - at this point - beyond the usual suspects. And given the SP’s past, sectarian, attitude to both Respect and the Greens, I’d be suspicious.”
The same case could be made about Respect or the SWP as has been done innumerable times on this blog. I fail to see how this helps forge unity.
I’ll repeat my points. It is incorrect to attribute the election of Griffin to NO2EU standing in the election. It was the neo-liberal politics of New Labour, their adaption to anti-immigration and BJ4BW rhetoric and the expenses scandal that led to Labours core support deciding not to vote. Without a credible left alternative it’s very unlikely that the Greens are capable of countering the BNP or offering a left alternative to Labour. Especially when they are all over place concerning industrial action. That doesn’t mean we can’t work with them but we also shouldn’t write off a section of the left because of past behavior or because they got less votes in certain areas. Accusing others of being toy Bolsheviks is not a serious argument, it conjures up unpleasant historical precedents and revisits all the divisive political posturing of the past.
It’s notable that a debate about who we should and should not work with is occurring in a thread initiated to paint the SWP as authoritarian and undemocratic.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
‘It is incorrect to attribute the election of Griffin to NO2EU standing in the election.’
This is flat earth society stuff. Yes, we all know Labour created the conditions. But in a specific tactical call, if the left had a more united response, the BNP could have been stopped. Stop denying the obvious while at the same time mouthing anti-fascist unity.
Comment by Ger Francis — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:01 am
‘it’s very unlikely that the Greens are capable of countering the BNP or offering a left alternative to Labour.’
They specifically campaigned on anti-racism in the NW. And their candidate is as left as you get. Ray’s argument is bonkers.
Comment by Ger Francis — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:04 am
“Is this what democracy looks like?”
But… but… you don’t believe in democracy! I’m confused now…
Comment by badnewswade — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Ray - I think you’re just wrong here. To say that it didn’t matter that the left vote was split in the EU elections leads logically to saying that it doesn’t matter if multiple left parties stand against each other in other ridings/regions because, after all, it’s New Labour which creates the conditions for the BNP.
The basis for left unity has to start from a recognition of where organizations have a base and the best possibility to get the best possible vote. That means sucking it up and standing down sometimes.
NO2EU got a derisory vote. The Greens came within inches of winning the seat over Griffin.
Are the Greens as left as revolutionaries might like - perhaps not. Are they as good on union struggles as revolutionaries might like - perhaps not. But we have to start from the balance of forces in the real world - sometimes that means voting for Labour, sometimes for left of Labour parties.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:34 am
Jota - if that’s the SP’s position, then I apologize for misrepresenting it.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:35 am
Redbedhead: that’s a very sensible point. Of course everyone’s analysis and perspective are to some extent bound up with their own organisation’s weight and prospects , at least for those supporting organisations that contest elections.
The issue is being ever mindful of that and testing those positions against reality and the actual interests of the movement.
The outcome of the elections in the North West ought to convince anyone with an open mind that no matter what they thought prior to the election, it was folly for the left not to get enthusiastically behind the Green candidate.
I’m unclear about the Socialist Party’s current position. I thought it was for everyone on the left to get behind the coalition to stand candidates and stand under a new name. If they are saying they are supporting Respect standing as Respect where it is strong, then that’s an advance.
Comment by Nas — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:53 am
I’m also unclear about the SWP’s theoretical position on the Labour Party.
Do they still see it as what was once described ad a bourgeois workers party or as simply another bourgeois party?
It’s changed, for sure. But how much and what does it mean for the attitude socialists should adopt?
That attitude can lead to a range of different concrete positions varying according to political circumstances and local conditions. But I understood the SWP was still for a Labour rather than a Tory government. That must mean voting Labour in most places, even given the urban concentration of its members.
Comment by Nas — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:19 am
“Are the Greens as left as revolutionaries might like - perhaps not. Are they as good on union struggles as revolutionaries might like - perhaps not. But we have to start from the balance of forces in the real world - sometimes that means voting for Labour, sometimes for left of Labour parties.”
Of course, but it’s one thing to claim that we should look for unity and another to claim that those who voted NO2EU would have voted Green if NO2EU hadn’t stood a candidate. I just don’t buy that argument. The logical extension of this is that the SWP should have called for a vote specifically for the Greens. The turn out was extremely low and as I pointed out significant numbers of traditional Labour voters did not turn out for the Green candidate. No one could have predicted this. Griffins win was not certain and playing the blame game after the event is pointless and also mistaken.
“This is flat earth society stuff. Yes, we all know Labour created the conditions. But in a specific tactical call, if the left had a more united response, the BNP could have been stopped. Stop denying the obvious while at the same time mouthing anti-fascist unity.”
It’s easy to trot this out in hindsight but it’s not only about this particular issue is it Ger? Galloway is not just talking here of supporting candidates where the BNP have a chance of winning. He’s talking about areas where Labour are under threat from the Tories. While I would support a number of left Labour candidates, if this rules out the possibility of standing left candidates for fear of Labour losing to the Tories then that is worrying.
Time will tell how serious all of us are about unity with the rest of the left.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:23 am
I haven’t seen anything from the SWP that suggests their view has changed, except insofar as there might be credible challenges to the left of Labour - as Socialist Worker argued in the EU elections. It would be a pretty big deal if that position changed, it’s rooted in a pretty foundational political methodology.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:25 am
“The logical extension of this is that the SWP should have called for a vote specifically for the Greens.”
Yes. I think in some areas the SWP did call for a Green vote, if I’m not mistaken. That’s why the Socialist Worker called for people to vote left but didn’t put “vote No2EU” on the cover. I don’t know if the SWP did so in the North-East but I think they should have - certainly in retrospect.
“…it’s one thing to claim that we should look for unity and another to claim that those who voted NO2EU would have voted Green if NO2EU hadn’t stood a candidate. I just don’t buy that argument.”
Unfortunately, it’s the anonymous nature of elections that you can’t really know that but it becomes rather self-defeating to approach it in this way. Why not also say, in the case of the recent Scottish election, “well, people who voted SSP wouldn’t have voted for Sheridan”?
I think what this betrays is a perspective on Green voters that puts them outside of the left, otherwise, why couldn’t they be won to vote for a credible left-of-Labour unity candidate? (If anything, the reason why NO2EU voters might not have gone Green is because the name “NO2EU” isn’t particularly evocative of left-wing politics and may well have attracted a certain number of right-wing crank votes)
“He’s talking about areas where Labour are under threat from the Tories. While I would support a number of left Labour candidates, if this rules out the possibility of standing left candidates for fear of Labour losing to the Tories then that is worrying.”
Ray, Lord knows I hate to agree with Ger over you but he hasn’t said vote Labour unless a left-of-Labour candidate can beat them. It’s not even clear that Respect can win the seats they’re contesting. Who knows till after the election? He’s said - and I think it’s Respect’s position - to vote Labour where there isn’t a credible left-of-Labour candidate. I would certainly agree with him that if there isn’t a credible left-of-Labour challenge then you have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:37 am
This is SW’s assessment post election:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18114
I note that it does not include an attack on NO2EU for standing a candidate. It also warns against being dragged down with Labour.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:38 am
Redbedhead: thanks for that. I imagine the position will be articulated more fully in Socialist Worker in the run up to the election if not before.
Ray: The problem you’re going to have is that the people driving this coalition see no problem at all if their sole achievement is to help some Tories in. They say there is no difference between Labour and the Tories. The CPB may restrain some of the excess, if they stay in. But they weren’t able to stop the idiocy in the North West Euros. Most of them, like most of us not in the core of NO2EU didn’t need the benefit of hindsight.
But once you have that benefit, it’s best to change you’re mind rather than pretend the unwanted outcome had nothing to do with your actions.E
Comment by Nas — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:39 am
“He’s said - and I think it’s Respect’s position - to vote Labour where there isn’t a credible left-of-Labour candidate.”
Ok, we’ll see if this pans out. Based on the toy Bolshevik quip I assume the SP aren’t included in the “credible” category? I wonder who else will be excluded when push comes to shove?
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:46 am
Ray - there’s a difference between being dragged down by Labour and saying that we’re indifferent to whether the Tories are elected. As for NO2EU, the IB1 that’s posted all over hell’s half-acre describes it as an adventure. I mean, just look at the vote. There’s all kinds of perfectly legitimate reasons why it might not have done well in the EU elections and why it still might be a worthwhile venture - eg that it represents an opening amongst a section of the TU bureaucracy to break with Labour and form a new party. It could be another strand in a longer term project leading towards real left unity. But let’s not pretend that it’s not silly to run for the sake of running when there’s no way to get anything but a derisory vote and where you leave yourself open to argument that you acted as a spoiler. Hopefully, the Scottish left have learned a similar lesson from their recent debacle.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:55 am
Ray - I think Respect’s position (or certainly Galloway’s position) is pretty clear and is a continuation of that organization’s assessment/method when the SWP were part of it: fight for the maximum success in order to become a pole of attraction and to thus be able to set the terms of any future left unity project. And, fair play, if Respect wins three seats in the elections - longshot that I think that is - they will rightfully have a earned a lot of pull. It would dramatically change the terrain on the left in Britain.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:00 am
“The problem you’re going to have is that the people driving this coalition see no problem at all if their sole achievement is to help some Tories in.”
I find this line of argument worrying because it simply isn’t true. That is not the intention of the SP nor the RMT. The “better Labour than the Tories” line is disastrous because instead of building a left alternative activists will end up doorstepping for Labour with all the contradictions that entails.
“Most of them, like most of us not in the core of NO2EU didn’t need the benefit of hindsight.”
It will be interesting to read all these pre-election analysis about how NO2EU would split the vote and allow Griffin in. I don’t recall any of this foresight that is now conveniently being claimed in hindsight. Even if these warnings did occur it doesn’t explain, as SW points out, why the Greens did not make significant gains. Let’s have a proper analysis of why Griffin got in rather than blaming so-called “toy Bolsheviks”.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:01 am
“I think Respect’s position (or certainly Galloway’s position) is pretty clear…”
That’s not my impression from what he has stated nor from those in Respect who are critical of him. But perhaps, like me, they are all just misinterpreting him. As for NO2EU, I didn’t support it and voted Green in my area but that doesn’t mean it’s to blame for Griffins win. IB 1 does not make that claim nor does the SWP.
“Ray, there’s a difference between being dragged down by Labour and saying that we’re indifferent to whether the Tories are elected.”
I wish you wouldn’t attribute to me something I never stated. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we should call for a vote for Labour regardless of the politics of the Labour candidate? And who decides who is a so-called “credible” candidate or not? Why is Respect more credible than the SP for example? Galloway was elected before the split, we’re in completely different terrain now. I also don’t accept that post-split Respect are following the same strategy as pre-split Respect based on his conference speech.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:19 am
Ray - I never said that the SWP claimed NO2EU was responsible for Griffin being elected. I said that the SWP called it an adventure. As for those in Respect critical of Galloway - I wouldn’t necessarily want to associate myself with Ian Donovan over Kevin O. And I think Liam’s post on the conference was a good middle-ground, which was critical of Galloway’s harshness but put it (I think) basically the way that I did.
I’m also not saying that you’re of the “Labour-Tory, what’s the difference” team. Not at all. But your qualification “While I would support a number of left Labour candidates” makes it seem like if you were in a riding where there was a New Labour candidate and no credible left-of-Labour candidate that you wouldn’t vote for them. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, in which case, I apologize.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:30 am
I have only registered my comment so I can keep up with the ins and outs of contributions.
I guess I better get my house in order for Sunday.
For those of you who are interested in (perhaps bullshit academic) debate on the Political Uses of the Internet you may wish to attend the session at Historical Materialism next week at which I am presenting a paper entitled Whiskey or Whine: how does activism transform our daily reality?
In the spirit of saying nothing…
vive la revolution
Comment by Clare Solomon — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:31 am
Okay, I should have properly read your post above:
1) “I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we should call for a vote for Labour regardless of the politics of the Labour candidate?”
Actually, I am suggesting that. We don’t vote for Labour because of their platform or the politics of individual candidates. We vote for them because they are a bourgeois-workers party. Full stop. The position has never been “Vote Labour where the candidate is left-wing.”
2) And who decides who is a so-called “credible” candidate or not? Why is Respect more credible than the SP for example? Galloway was elected before the split, we’re in completely different terrain now.
Respect has an MP - Galloway - who is very high profile and on primarily a good basis. Salma has considerable support. The SP has nowhere near the concentrated bases of Respect - except apparently with Dave Nellis, which Respect is supporting. Respect and Galloway have said that they will support Val Wise in Preston as well. If people are indifferent to whether Galloway (or Salma or Nellist or Lucas) get elected, they are crazy. If three or four left of labour candidates get elected, it will be electric.
3) I’m not saying that Respect’s overall strategy is the same. The SWP was pushing to make inroads into the union movement in a way that Respect doesn’t seem that interested in (correct me if I’m wrong). The present leadership of Respect are more interested in building up local bases of support to win a few seats as a basis to push beyond that. It is more electoralist in focus, I think, and more narrow, at least in the short term. I was just specifically talking about the relationship of leadership to left unity, ie. we show how it’s done, then people come knocking on our door.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:40 am
Oh, and it’s a reflection on ‘UK university occupations’ which is what my paper is billed as given soas’ recent involvement in…
Comment by Clare Solomon — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:45 am
“I never said that the SWP claimed NO2EU was responsible for Griffin being elected.”
I never said that you did but Galloway is and I think it’s a misguided analysis that results in the “toy Bolshevik” jibes that are unhelpful in forging unity.
There’s a difference between voting Labour and campaigning for them. It will be interesting to see what happens in Barking. We have Hodge who has been pandering to the BNP’s rhetoric. Do we call for a vote for her, a vote for the Greens or do we stand a left of Labour candidate? These are the question that will be discussed in the run up to the election and it doesn’t help to disregard a section of the left because of past follies. Especially considering that no one on the left is innocent of that mistake.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:48 am
In Barking - if there is nobody who can credibly challenge Labour from the left, you have to vote Labour, I’d say. Not the ideal situation - obviously you want to put up someone with local credibility. But an election is not the time to start to build an electoral alternative. Respect was possible because of the anti-war movement; its foundation was created long before any election and its momentum came out of mass mobilization. The anti-fascist movement doesn’t yet represent those kinds of forces in alliance. And neither does NO2EU in most places (there will be exceptions, of course where pre-existing candidates like Dave Nellist have built up credibility via the SP).
Comment by redbedhead — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:58 am
“Actually, I am suggesting that. We don’t vote for Labour because of their platform or the politics of individual candidates. We vote for them because they are a bourgeois-workers party. Full stop. The position has never been “Vote Labour where the candidate is left-wing.””
But we are making a distinction between Labour candidates in this election because we want to stand left candidates where the Labour candidate is to the right in order to offer a left alternative. Nothing should prevent us from doing so especially not the argument that it will split Labours vote and let the Tories in.
“If people are indifferent to whether Galloway (or Salma or Nellist or Lucas) get elected, they are crazy.”
No one is claiming this which is why it’s equally unproductive to dismiss the SP and those involved in NO2EU as “toy Bolsheviks”.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:06 am
#213
“It will be interesting to read all these pre-election analysis about how NO2EU would split the vote and allow Griffin in. I don’t recall any of this foresight that is now conveniently being claimed in hindsight. ”
Well I certainly flagged up the danger in the NW severll timies in advance, and both publically argued for No2Eu not to stand there, as well as privately exoressing my concerns to leading people within No2EU.
I know that the argument was forcefuly put to Alex Gordon of the RMT by anti-fascists activists in the North West, which it was still possible for No2Eu not to stand.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:17 am
#219
“But we are making a distinction between Labour candidates in this election because we want to stand left candidates where the Labour candidate is to the right in order to offer a left alternative. Nothing should prevent us from doing so especially not the argument that it will split Labours vote and let the Tories in.”
If this is true, then this is a major strategic break from the historical politics of the SWP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:19 am
#205
Ray, discussing the split of votes that allowed Griffin to win
“No one could have predicted this. ”
Well actually loads of people predicted this. There doesn’t seem much point in your “marxism” if it has less predictive power than the most philistine psephologist
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:22 am
Actually they didn’t Andy and if you weren’t shocked by Griffins win as most of the left were then I’m surprised. Marxism doesn’t predict elections. Try Nostradamus. The question is why did the Greens not do better if they offered a pole of attraction to disaffected Labour voters?
“If this is true, then this is a major strategic break from the historical politics of the SWP.”
When Galloway stood against Oona King was that a strategic break?
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:42 am
#223 ” if you weren’t shocked by Griffins win as most of the left were then I’m surprised. “
Ray,
The Green party’s polling, Searchlight’s analysis, the Labour Party’s polling, the BNP’s own polling, and just a cursory glance at the last election and subsequent improvement in the BNP’s national standing was ringing alarms bells. It was far from a suprise that Grifffin won, it was what we had been fearing for months, on the day we all thought we had just done enough, and so in that sense it was a crushing disappointment, but far from out the blue
the task of the left, in its boradest sense, was to intervene in that election to try to secure the result we wanted, Griffin being defeated. It is utterly stupid to argue now that no-one could have predicted that boosting the Green vote could have prevented Griffin, when thousands of people not only did predict that, but acted upon it.
“When Galloway stood against Oona King was that a strategic break?”
Galloway clearly was a credible candidate, but generally, the chances of the Tories winning that election were not that high, and there was more space for challenging Labour on a propaganda basis.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:47 am
#182 “Respect is clearly aligning itself with the mainstream labour movement desire to have a labour rather than tory victory at the general election.
That is, it is Respect who are better aligned with the mainstream of the trade union movement.”
As the General Election looms, a lot of the minority parties are going to find the going gets much tougher, as Glasgow NE indicated.
There’s no chance of a majority mass split from Labour occuring by then.
So a limited Socialist electoral campaign is the best way to challenge the politics of New Labour.
This can be done, both by putting forward alternative policies inside the Labour party, and from the outside
Standing prominent Socialists against New Labour cabinet members is a good strategy, especially if they can get union backing.
The union bureaucracy continues to prop up New Labour.
But within the RMT, CWU and PCS there is clearly a critical mass which is prepared to question this.
There are also a handful of left wing candidates outside the organised Labour movement, in Respect, the Green Left etc..with a local base and some chance of election.
Obviously they can’t be stopped from standing, but there should be some attempt to coordinate their activities with a national campaign by the left unions.
That would avoid some of the invitable finger-pointing and accusations of letting in the BNP or Tories that inevitably follows uncoordinated electoral campaigns.
Any campaign has to be conducted in a way that doesn’t alienate the core working class Labour supporters.
So it’s important to be seen as actively campaigning against the return of a Tory government.
This makes the task of criticising the policies of the Labour leadership and presenting Socialist policies easier
Over-ambitious national campaigns that operate on an “after New Labour-us” basis are going to crash and burn.
Following the election, the real debate inside the Labour party will break out.
Comment by prianikoff — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:07 am
I am sure I am not the only one who thinks it is just a matter of, probably a fairly short, time before the SWP’s Left Platform faction splits away to form their own autonomous organisation.
The SWP mainstream and the faction clearly hate one another, regardless of the individual sins of members of the current Central Committee, the Control Commission or the Left Platform. They have found an orientation to divide over. And the SWP leadership is seeking to help them on their way, quite deliberately in my view, by picking off a number of Left Platform supporters with expulsions.
So it is now a tactical matter for the Left Platform leadership of Rees, German and Nineham to decide when is the most opportune time to declare independence. Or more perhaps a more likely scenario is they will be forced into separation fairly soon, just after their defeat at conference probably, because of the threat of the demoralisation and disintegration of their troops through the war of attrition.
I think we also now know the likely size of the new group, which will be somewhere between 40 and 80 and most likely around 60. Who would have thought this would be the result of the Respect split two years ago?
Comment by rachel trickett — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Rachel, worth remembering that 60 is only the number of people who were openly willing to be aligned with the faction.
Given the SWP’s published membership of 5-6,000, and the fact that they only got 1,300 to sign their “stop the witch-hunt in respect” petition despite pressure from every organiser, and given that they only got 1,100 or so people to sign their open letter earlier this year (which, they claimed, was going down well outside the party and therefore must - must! - have contained a lot of signatures from people in the labour movement), I am confident that there is an untapped group of thousands who don’t sign these things but quietly agree with them.
Given that the SWP leadership are notoriously honest and clear about membership, that’s the only explanation really. The other 4,500 people just stay quietly in the background.
Comment by external bulletin — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:26 am
I’m shocked that Ray can casually throw in the idea of some unknown left candidate tossing their hat into the ring in Barking.
Here’s a prediction for you Ray, given that there has been NO attempt to build a base for such a candidacy and that it will just make propaganda against Labour, it’s effect will be to bring us closer to the BNP getting their first MP.
I hope your comments here are not what passes for SWP thinking.
Comment by Nas — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:27 am
The alternative is that Lindsey German’s figure of about 600 active members is more accurate. Those who are part of the faction are almost certainly active, which means the SWP stands to lose 10% of its active membership.
Comment by external bulletin — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:28 am
I’m also amazed that Ray thinks no one could, or did, predict Nick Griffin winning.
Why do you think Respect fought so hard to get people to support the Greens? Why do you think Respect members, who could’ve been busy building their own organisation, spent so much time campaigning for Peter Cranie? Why do you think so many people tried to convince No2EU not to stand in the NW?
The problem is, this’ll be typical Ray. He won’t ever read these responses, just like he’s never even acknowledged that he was wrong for calling an anti-fascist activist a “nazi troll” several times a few months ago.
As you say, Ray, we’ll see who’s serious about left unity.
Comment by external bulletin — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:40 am
The SWP’s most recent published membership is 6,200-and-something (can’t remember the exact figure), having grown by about 400 since April.
Comment by ted — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Ted,
A thought experiment.
If the SWP has 6,200 members and recruits another 300 but, at the same time, loses 500 how many members does it have?
Yep, thats right- the answer is 6,500 ‘cos the ‘lost’ members remain on the books for two years. This time lag makes it nigh impossible to guage what is really going on in the SWP from the raw data alone.
When it comes to membership figures, its a bit like seeing the SWP from a distant star- it could have gone supernova 18 months ago but until the light hits earth we have no way of knowing…
Comment by Copper Knickers — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:43 am
The figure of 5,800ish was from April, after the last ‘wipe’ of those who’ve not paid subs for two years or indicated they still want to be a member. The figure of 6,200ish (apologies for the vagueness but I don’t have the exact figures in front of me - it is somewhat over 6,200 but not a lot) is from the end of October. I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but our branch has been recruiting and we haven’t been losing members.
Comment by ted — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Some of the above comments about numbers, active members and the left list etc are actually quite amusing. The swp does not have just 600 active members, and its clearly recruiting. Not on a colossal scale but recruiting nevertheless.
Some people really need to move on.
Comment by swp member — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I can never work out why an organisation with 6,200 members can’t even get them all to sign a letter calling for unity.
Comment by external bulletin — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:16 am
What is the class composition of a) Respect b) The SWP c) SP etc.? Does anyone have even the faintest idea? or any information other than prejudice, innuendo and anecdote? Do any of these organisations release reliable information in this regard? Are any of these organisations noticeably more working class, with a better working class implantation?
Comment by Andy Wilson — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Andy Wilson
I can’t give you anything resembling a scientific answer, but the vast majority of our members in Tower Hamlets for sure are simply poor. Most of them live in overcrowded housing. Most have never been to university. They do a range of occupations - a couple of our council candidates are post office workers.
All of them are embedded in their communities, which are proletarian.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Somewhere I read the SWP has published that they have 2,900 members actually paying regular subs. Not all of these people, one imagines, are active members, rather than sentimental ones or people who don’t check their bank statements. Still it is is a lot more than 60.
Comment by rachel trickett — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
On the numbers.
I joined the SWP for the first time in January 1978, as a FE student.
At that time, the SWP did a regular card reissue every year, and all members had to rejoin. t also published in the IB a break down of the membership by trade union and profession. IIRC the membership was claimed at 3600, around a third of them manual workers, actually in 1978 the SWP had suprisingly few student members, having deprioristied campus work, and effectively having left the universities to the IMG for a few years.
So I have a yardstick by which to judge 3600 members.
There were far more towns with active SWP branches in 1978 than there are now, and the SWP was much more implanted in the trade unions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
external bulletin, it could have done but it didn’t. possibly comrades were busy with other things. i’m very active in my branch but i must confess that i never got around to signing it myself. i should have, since i support and agree with it - but i didn’t.
Comment by ted — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Andy, as you’ve immediately said that the swp then has a different membership to now, with more students now, how useful is your yardstick? Also the students are the most likely to include active members who don’t pay subs. When i was a student, getting their subs in was very hit and miss.
The thing that amuses me is the lengths people go to to come up with their own yardstick to say that the swp is small, or shrinking, or both. I don’t know what the active number is. 2900 pay subs but less than that active seems right. 600 is ridiculously low. And how active is active? I’ve got a young child, and haven’t sold a paper in over a year. Am I active?
Comment by swp member — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Based on personal observation, I would be surprised if SWP membership was as low as 600, though that might be a good estimate of the activist core, the people who keep the branches running and bring the paper out. I would also be surprised if paid-up membership was much over 2,500. I don’t think there are as many branches around now as there were in the 1990s, although that might be the result of reorganisation rather than declining numbers.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
#239 Perhaps you could tell us what proportion are members of trade unions. That would give some indication of whether they are working class, lumpenproletarian or petty-bourgeois.
Comment by tyresome points — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Going back up the thread a bit, I think the question at the time of the Euro elections was who is going to pick up the disaffected Labour vote otherwise we’d have to agree that it was the notoriously sectarian Greens standing against Labour that let Nick Griffin in. Some in Respect felt the Greens were best placed and others that No2EU were best placed and that it was better to support an organisation with at least nominal trade union connections. Both were proved wrong as neither proved attractive enough to stop Griffin. Anyway, at least as a result the Greens have agreed not to stand against Salma and in the meantime `son of No2EU’ seems to have been still born. But the most important thing is that Respect has taken a clear class position over the general election. It calls for a vote for Respect where it will be standing three embedded candidates (and for a smattering of ther serious candidates) but apart from that is unequivocally for the return of a Labour government in solidarity with the millions of workers who will vote for them either with illusions or simply because they know that the hated Tories must be defeated. Those who feared that Respect would abandon class positions and the labour movement in favour of an unprincipled or wishy washy pointless grand coalition with the Greens by which they gave blanket support to them wherever they stood instead of just supporting one or maybe two of their better candidacies can breathe easy again and put their backs into the Respect campaign(the disastrous Scottish mess has been avoided thanks to decisive political leadership). Respect is clearly of the working class movement and will do what its supporters and electoral base desire of it: take the anti-war, anti-cuts message into the heart of the labour movement and there slug it out with the opportunists.
Excellent that the recent faction fight took place openly
and publicly and was not decided by fiat or bureaucratic and administrative measures. This demonstrates respect both for the membership and the people Respect hopes to attract to vote for it and means that nobody got expelled and that 90% of the membership wasn’t lost to politics forever which is the usual result when bureaucrats dictate politics rather than the other way around.
Alex: good luck in your struggle with the SWP CC. You will learn to spot the black arts of the bureaucrats as they move against you. Selective expulsions, whispering campaigns, an attempt to ruin your reputation for ever (i believe they are already ludicrously trying to brand you a scab. Shameless these people. Galloway once said that John Rees had saved him from political oblivion by providing the logistical and political support he needed to get back into parliament after the New Labour clique had expelled him. I believe that if the left platform people are expelled from the SWP they would be welcomed
back into Respect if they were prepared to work in an
exemplary manner and it would be a huge boost for the left if some of the leaders of the StWC found themselves in the same organisation as the movers behind Viva Palestina. Perhaps Galloway and Salma could write an open letter to
Rees and German outlining the potential and the conditions for rapprochement?
Comment by David Ellis — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
“#239 Perhaps you could tell us what proportion are members of trade unions. That would give some indication of whether they are working class, lumpenproletarian or petty-bourgeois.”
So two thirds of the labouring masses in Britain are either “lumpenproletarian or petty-bourgeois”?
This is indeed tiresome, and rather a good indication of why a particular, dogmatic version of class politics is dead.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
#243
“as you’ve immediately said that the swp then has a different membership to now, with more students now, how useful is your yardstick? ”
That is why i made the comments as specific as I did, so that people can make their own judgement.
But let us assume that the SWP is in the same order of magnitudeas it was in 1978, but has a more campus based memebrship, and far fewer people in the trade unions.
What does that mean?
Back in the 1970s, the IS/SWP represented a confused by fairly lively coalition of two different approaches, i) Cliff’s Lenin party building; and ii) a transitional form of politics based upon seeing the shop stewards movement becoming the core of a mass party, and the SWP playing the role of midwife. This pulled the party in two different directions, but generally there was a connection between how members saw their day to day activity and the howo they conceived the SWP playing a role in the transition to socialism.
In the 1980s that link was broken, and the mistaken decision to stay outside the Labour Party (the issue over whch I left the SWP in 1980) consigned the SWP into the role of propagandist group at a time when the main political struggle in the labour movement was in the labour Party.
The orientation of that propaganda group was the “downturn” perspective of maintaining “concrete propaganda”, that is acting as a propaganda group but trying to make the propaganda relevent to day to day issues, the aim being to maintain the organisation with a lively intellectual internal life, and basically waiit for the outside world to provide more favourable circumstances.
But how, nowadays, does the SWP conceive that a mass socialist party can be built in Britain? By concentrating on post-graduate students? At least the perspective around the Socialist Alliance and Respect had a potentiala dynamic to it of transcending the current conditions, but the conservative “build the party” mindset meannt that the SWP was unable to see that through.
So maybe the SWP is around the same size, bt the shift in mambership composition also marks the shift from being a small but relevent part of the actual organised workers movement into being a small but shrill propaganda group.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
On Andy’s point at #223 - I seem to remember the Socialist Alliance taking an near-identical point of view; indeed, Ray may be quoting from a SA leaflet.
There’s two important points there: firstly, we’re for left Labour MPs getting back in, and so we wouldn’t support a left challenge against them; secondly, the left shouldn’t be deterred from standing against right-wing Labour MPs by the threat that this might let the Tories in. What will let the Tories in is the way that New Labour has behaved.
Comment by chjh — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Oh whatever Andy…
The SWP now is still clearly a ’small but relevant’ part of the organised working class. If you don’t think so tell talk to our postal workers, our teachers, the trade unionist activists who buy our paper in significant numebrs even when we don’t have a large membership.
You’ll probably find that the reduction in the swp’s working class base is not a million miles from the reduction that has taken place in the number of TU activists generally.
Comment by swp member — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
#247 “So two thirds of the labouring masses in Britain are either “lumpenproletarian or petty-bourgeois”?”
No. Are you saying that trade union membership is not a good indication of who is working class? I think so, but just because tu members are working class doesn’t necessarily mean that those who aren’t are not. It would show how much Respect is based on class rather than community if the figure were high(relative to say the SWP, let alone the apparently more proletarian SP). Are you refusing to answer the question because you are afraid a true answer would provide an inconvenient truth? Wither your marxism now?
Comment by tyresome points — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
I didn’t ask the question about class composition in order to make any point in particular or criticise anyone, implicitly or otherwise. Since we were talking about membership figures I just thought I’d take the chance to ask also about the class composition of various groups and parties. It’s vital information, and my question was meant to invite the publication of statistics rather than a new round of baseless dispute (of course, once the statistics are in you can feel free to dispute them as heatedly as you like.) In the absence of any hard facts or detailed claims the argument is a little pointless.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Tyresome
It was you who introduced trade union membership as an indicator of whether Respect had a working class base.
Ok - at the risk of prolonging this… the proportion of members of Respect in a trade union is probably a bit higher than the national average. It will, I’m sure, be less than both the SWP and SP. We have fewer white-collar, public sector workers (teachers for example, where trade union density is close to 100 percent).
Your notion that trade union density would tell you something useful about class composition is terribly flawed. An organisation made up solely of teachers or lecturers would, with your method, be a gleaming proletarian bastion.
One made up of cleaners, waiters, car mechanics, sales assistants, Macslaves in IT, McDonald’s staff, printers (yes - printers) and so on would score so low on the your indicator of class composition that that it would look positively lumpen or pettie bourgeois. I think the figure for trade union density in the private sector (which includes once nationalised industries) is around 18 percent, give or take.
Yours is a most unhelpful way of looking at the world. The syndicalist ahistoricism behind it is bankrupt.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Andy
I think yours was a very fair question and I answered it as best I could in good faith. Others, however, seem to have an axe to grind.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Kev I lied about you in the thread on RESPECT Conference…. soz just artistic license!
Comment by mark anthony france [independent parliamentary candidate for Bromsgrove Consituency] — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Sorry Kevin, that remark wasn’t directed at you
Comment by Andy Wilson — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
#142: ftr, I think Clare S’s case is very different to yours. Sorry to return to the topic but I only just noticed the comment
Comment by Andy Wilson — 17 November, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
“One made up of cleaners, waiters, car mechanics, sales assistants, Macslaves in IT, McDonald’s staff, printers (yes - printers) and so on would score so low on the your indicator of class composition that that it would look positively lumpen or pettie bourgeois.”
This of course assumes that the members working in these sectors of generally low trade union membership, did not join a trade union themselves. It is inadvertently, a telling comment on Respects orientation to the labour movement.
Comment by bill j — 17 November, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
#258 There should be an apostrophe in Respects. Though there should also be some socialist politics other than grandstanding and that doesn’t look likely to happen.
Comment by tyresome points — 17 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
#258- What point are you making billj? An explanation rather than another cryptic put-down would help.
Comment by Armchair — 17 November, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Details of another SWP split below. It seems that there’s a bit of a generalised crisis going on.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/94807
Comment by Fast Eddie — 17 November, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
“I’m shocked that Ray can casually throw in the idea of some unknown left candidate tossing their hat into the ring in Barking.”
You’re right it’s outrageous to have a debate about how we organise against the BNP in Barking. Whatever was I thinking!
“I’m also amazed that Ray thinks no one could, or did, predict Nick Griffin winning.
Why do you think Respect fought so hard to get people to support the Greens? Why do you think Respect members, who could’ve been busy building their own organisation, spent so much time campaigning for Peter Cranie? Why do you think so many people tried to convince No2EU not to stand in the NW?”
Hmm…I visit this blog frequently and I don’t remember these calls for NO2EU to stand down. I remember a general feeling among the left that it was a folly for them to stand so many candidates rather than a select few. And the ‘NO2EU’ title was considered a mistake by many on the left but other than that I don’t buy this idea that Respect campaigned against NO2EU, warning that they would split the vote and allow Griffin in.
Despite Andy’s assertion that Searchlight was warning of Griffins victory and the danger of NO2EU standing against the Greens this is the first paragraph from a Searchlight article before the election:
“‘‘We rather it hadn’t happened! ’’ That was the conclusion of Martin Wingfield, editor of the British National Party’s Voice of Freedom monthly, on the MPs’ expenses scandal. He was writing three weeks before polling day amid growing signs that the BNP’s campaign for the European election was falling apart.”
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=282
Apparently the BNP weren’t too sure about their chances either. Which is contrary to Andy’s recollection.
None of those blaming NO2EU have yet addressed why the Greens didn’t attract disaffected Labour voters as SW correctly points out. But it’s easier to blame the SP and RMT than address the real reasons behind Griffins win. It’s not a recipe for a unified electoral strategy.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
I am a member of the SWP in the north east and to be honest with you there is more than meets the eye with this case, you may accuse the swp of being undemocratic but Alex Snowdon gave up the fight to win the political arguement months ago (outside the pre-conference period), and has since then worked to undermine the swp, stop the war and other campaigns. It’s one thing to disagree with the party line but it is a whole different kettle of fish to start to destroy campaigns in the north east in a petty attempt to calve out the swp once you have lost the arguement…
Comment by north east swp member — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
#262
“I don’t buy this idea that Respect campaigned against NO2EU, warning that they would split the vote and allow Griffin in.”
Well you are just a duplicitous idiot then.
I can’t be bothered to trawl back through the argumentas, but the fact that you can’t remember it is hardly proof that it didn’t happen.
On several occasions this exact point ws argued, time and again.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Ray, you have lost the plot, big time. Are you really an SWP member? I find it hard to believe.
Comment by Ger Francis — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
In the North West as well. We sought assurances from the No2EU coalition that it would not stand in the North West. Personally, I can remember a Respect meeting in June 2008 being introduced by one of our members who analyzed the local election results for the BNP and concluded that we had to launch North Manchester Against Racism (where the BNP got its largest vote in the city) but should expect to lose the fight to stop Griffin.
When we reached the tactical agreement with the Green Party, it presented a chance to really stop Griffin and galvanized a lot of activists in the North West who would not have normally voted Green. For instance, the Greens polled third in Manchester and the Respect Convenor was a key motive force in mobilizing activists, liaising with the GPEW week by week.
Ray’s point relies on psephology and ignores the more political issue. If the organizations associated with NO2EU had argued for and mobilized their support into a tactical vote for Peter Cranie, the 5,000 vote gap could have been closed. The problem is about the role of leadership and mobilizing support.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Oh Ray’s an SWP member. Can’t you tell by his inability to construct an honest argument, his apparent ability to sit above and outside the pressures and distractions of real political life, his accusations of “nazi troll” against anti-fascist activists and his attempts to stir up trouble between groups his organisation has no influence and control over?
Comment by external bulletin — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
I remember the debate, t was clearly argued on this site (at least) that no2EU could let BNP in the NW. That is simply a fact, and easy to prove should anyone wish to.
but Andy ‘Well you are just a duplicitous idiot then.’ remember your camapaign for civility in debate? guess not.
Comment by non-partisan — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
If the Green Party stands in Barking and gets say 1,500 votes and Griffin beats Hodge by 300 votes, will you then blame the Greens for letting the BNP in?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
“Well you are just a duplicitous idiot then.
I can’t be bothered to trawl back through the argumentas, but the fact that you can’t remember it is hardly proof that it didn’t happen.
On several occasions this exact point ws argued, time and again.”
I subscribe to Hope Not Hate and I could post their pre-election emails and leaflets with nary a mention of the Greens or NO2EU. I’m challenging your claim that Searchlight were warning against voting NO2EU. Your claim that it was the widely held argument before the election is untrue. I suspect your claim that Respect were warning against splitting the vote is also hot air. Please dig out the evidence as I’d like to clarify this.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
#268
mmmm
“but Andy ‘Well you are just a duplicitous idiot then.’ remember your camapaign for civility in debate? guess not.”
you have got me bang to rights on that one !
sorry ray.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
“sorry ray.”
No problem. I’ve had worse but non-partisan is right, it’s more constructive if we try not to let frustration with each others argument turn into a slanging match.
The issue at stake for me is explaining why Griffin won. This must inform our strategy on the left in the next election. I don’t believe that it was the result of NO2EU splitting the vote. The SWP, Hope Not Hate and the UAF advised getting people out to vote on polling day. That’s where our campaign fell short. That’s not to blame the many good activists campaigning against the BNP it just reflects the demoralisation with Labour and the lack of a credible left alternative. Why the Greens didn’t capitalise on the disaffection with the main parties nor attract the traditional Labour vote in the NW is relevant in this debate.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
The entire direction of Ray’s contribution is very dangerous for anti-fascists strategy. For the umpteenth time, New Labour created the conditions for the BNP to win in the NW. But tactical ineptitude and sectarianism on the left’s part aided them in that victory. Even if you accept the antidote is a ‘credible left alternative’ to inspire the voters and increase turnout, and I think that’s simplistic and erroneous on many levels, what is without doubt is that nobody, including Respect and the Greens, and certainly not son-of-NO2EU, are in a position to run a ‘credible left alternative’ in Barking for the general election. All energy must go into calling for a Labour vote and supporting anti-fascist campaigning if we are to stop the BNP making a breakthrough in Barking.
Comment by Ger Francis — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Good points about Barking Ger - absolutely spot on.
For once I totally agree with you.
Nobody on the left, not Respect or the Greens or “the secret and apparently soon-to-be-announced coalition” is in a position to run a credible campaign in Barking - the only principled option for the left there is to urge a Labour vote to stop the BNP.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
#257 I’m afraid you’ll find Clare’s case is exactly the same as mine - even down to using the same evidence.
#263 Detail tends to suggest someone is telling the truth; vagueness normally indicates that someone isn’t. The truth is specific. The lack of anything specific in your comment - instead resorting to vague insinuation - gives the game away.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
“The entire direction of Ray’s contribution is very dangerous for anti-fascists strategy.”
In what way. Please explain.
“But tactical ineptitude and sectarianism on the left’s part aided them in that victory.”
Based on what evidence? Did NO2EU stop disaffected Labour voters from voting Green?
Of course we want to form agreements about not standing against one another but it doesn’t follow that NO2EU split the vote. That’s a dangerous (to borrow your hyperbole) misreading of the events because it doesn’t address the very real problem of trying to engage disaffected Labour voters who actually could have made a difference. It also sets up barriers to unity by falsely blaming others on the left.
“Even if you accept the antidote is a ‘credible left alternative’ to inspire the voters and increase turnout, and I think that’s simplistic and erroneous on many levels, what is without doubt is that nobody, including Respect and the Greens, and certainly not son-of-NO2EU, are in a position to run a ‘credible left alternative’ in Barking for the general election.”
Oh I see what you’ve done here - you’re attempting to link my questioning of your assessment of the NW result with a call for a left candidate against Hodge. A call I never made. Don’t you get tired of playing all these transparent twisty turny games to discredit people who hold an alternative political view to you? It’s hardly ‘credible’ is it?
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Says the man who accused an anti-fascist of being a “Nazi troll”
Comment by external bulletin — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
“Says the man who accused an anti-fascist of being a “Nazi troll””
Says the man who has nothing to contribute to the debate.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
Although Lenin makes a good point that it was Hodges fumbling concessions to fascist propaganda that helped the BNP gain 13 seats in 2006. That probably contributed to Griffins decision to stand there.
Comment by Ray — 17 November, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Not only did Respect openly argue for others on the left to campaign for the Greens,some of the more sensible people involved in No2EU argued againt standing as well.
It was a big mistake for sections of the hard left not to campaign hard for the Greens in the North West.
Some people don’t see that and are playing around with fantasy candidatures in Barking. This is extremely dangerous.
People will have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:37 am
#280,
I am glad you pointed out it was not a one way or only view that the left shold have not beeen in opposition to each other in the recent NW election. And we must carry the lessons of that in the future
Of course there are some sensible people in the now ” The con of NO2EU” however the brew of the personal capacity so-called ” con of NOEU” left front should be ringing warnings in Barking and other places that their misplaced desires is divisise.Collectively They will not listen Why they they should not.
These changlings morphic villians of New labour, know they have no chance of increasing their standing in the next general election. The obscure name itself is a put off to the working class voter.
The sensible ones genuinely want a bridgehead to make inroads into the labour party and unfortunately they will do the opposite by hurling themselves infantily into the big picture of winnable left seats elsewhere.
Of course I am supporting Respect firstly, the Greens, secondly and accountable Labour candidates thirdly.
The “Big con of NO2EU” is unstoppable bad news and a poll disaster for all caught up in this economic mess and breeding ground for racialism,zenophobia and islamophobia.
Comment by Larry — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:32 am
Firstly, I agree completely with those arguing for tactical support for Hodge in Barking in the general election - the priority here has to be to stop the BNP leader winning a seat in Parliament and nothing must come before that.
On the No2EU debate, as someone who was an active supporter of No2EU in the Euros, of course I agree there was much that could and should have been done better.
But I’m getting sick and tired of Respecters going on and on about how we should have supported the Greens - why for fucks sake?
We don’t agree with their policies, we don’t agree with their programme, and we don’t agree with their whole outlook.
You Respecters are having a “love-in” with the Greens and good luck to you. But we just don’t support them - so we won’t vote for them.
If the Greens were so worried about a BNP victory in the Euros, why the fuck didn’t they stand down themselves?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 November, 2009 @ 7:27 am
It seems to me thta the lleft is still stuck in a time warp that thinks left propaganda around socialism is the way forward. No and again you have to take stock of where has this got to. When it comes to elections such candidates regularly get 0.001% of the vote wasting resources on what could have been used more productively to get far more votes for candidates who could win.
It is a disgrace that No2EU stood in the North West - their activity could easily have got a Green MEP instead of Griffin. But they went for ‘building the left alternative’. Ultra-lefts of the world unite is hopeless and I agree with Kevin Ovenden’s approach which is to support candidates to the left (ie Greens) if they can win and not think it does the working class any service to stand where it can contribute to Tories winning.
What Ger Francis says is also true about where this leads to. Anyone who occasionally visits planet earth knows that the BNP could win Barking. Perhaps they think Griffin’s election in North West is an advance for the working class? Nothing could be more infantile than to stand a left candidate against Margaret Hodge - who I detest vehemently, by the way. If you weren’t in a comfortable home not being harassed by racists on the streets, having excretia through your letter boxes etc as Asian people in East London have to suffer, you might begin to see the difference between Hodge and Griffin.
This is no time for luxury socialism - the infitle disorder of the British left.
Comment by Howard T — 18 November, 2009 @ 7:32 am
What? Who says they’re standing in Barking? The tone of some Respect supporters seems to be:
‘No-one should stand against Labour on the left, unless they have a chance to win - which means us in 3 seats and the Greens in 2. Plus Peter Tatchell, who won’t win, but we’ll back him because we want to get on with the Green Left. Greens can stand anywhere, regardless, of course, but if anyone else does they are sectarian splitters. In anycase we will keep on about the No2EU letting Griffin in, and refuse to acknowledge there may be a coherent argument against this. Plus nobody on the left represents ’serious forces’ but us. Nah-na-nah!
It is getting boring
Comment by j — 18 November, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Well said J,
The working-class left has not said it’s going to stand in Barking - if we did then of course we would be wrong to do so and any such suggestion should be argued against as strongly as possible.
In my view, we should actively support Hodge - and also actively support Cruddas in Dagenham for the same reason.
Respecters are arguing against a fantasy “left” candidate in Barking that has not been announced.
But of course, given their current “love-in” with the Greens, they won’t criticise the Greens for standing anywhere.
Let the Respecters and Greens get on with their alliance and let’s wish them good luck and leave them to it.
We on the working-class left need to stop fannying about trying to dream up ever-more obscure names for short-term coalitions and build a serious Workers Party dedicated to winning working-class state power. We already have three separate parties with that essential aim already - SWP, SP, CP - so let’s unite them into a single Workers Party and let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work!
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 November, 2009 @ 8:23 am
“…build a serious Workers Party dedicated to winning working-class state power. We already have three separate parties with that essential aim already - SWP, SP, CP …”
Karl- I refer you to a question I put to you on the Respect conference thread.
Comment by Armchair — 18 November, 2009 @ 10:38 am
“Let the Respecters and Greens get on with their alliance and let’s wish them good luck and leave them to it.”
So essentially you’re not interested in bulding the left and forging alliances? People have to tick an awful lot of boxes in order to qualify for your sacred party, it seems.
How has anything Kevin said in this thread and others about Respect shown him not to be part of the “working class left”?
It’s such an insult to people, Karl. And it’s the type of narrow thinking that is going to see you whining on blogs for years to come.
Respect IS part of the working class left. It has a perspective based around real forces; your conception seems to be “we announce it and they will come to us”. Respect’s is “let’s see what’s out there and see if we can work with them”.
Tactical differences, and I profoundly disagree with your patronising tone towards those who don’t mention socialism every 15 minutes - and to be honest, the way you and others on the hardcore old left have conducted these debates makes me think there’s no hope for you, because you push more people away than you ever pull towards you.
Where was the “working class left” when hundreds of Muslims got together to organise practical solidarity for Gaza? It strikes me that it was one of the most profound acts of working class solidarity in years, yet the “working class left” ignored it.
That’s the problem in a nutshell. Your idea of what constitutes a “workers party” or “working class left” is so narrow as to be invisible.
There is no “love in” with the Greens. There is an ability - lacking in so many of you lot - to see that the left comes in lots of shapes and sizes, and that within the Greeens there is a serious left/socialist strand (ever read what Barry Kade writes?); the Greens contain a lot of ex-SWP and ex-other left people.
Respect was absolutely, 100% right to back Cranie in the NW. Are you really so blinkered as to not see what a decent left-winger he is, and how much it would’ve boosted people in the NW to have seen both a defeat for the BNP and a win for a socialist? Picture yourself as an actual working class person in an actual working class community - perhaps a working class Muslim under threat from the BNP - and ask yourself why you *didn’t* support the Greens in the NW.
You have an absolute, dogmatic position, which would be fine if it didn’t entail dismissing, in the most condescending way, the efforts of others to analyse the position and fortunes of the working class and go down slightly different paths to help rebuild its confidence and stop the attacks on it.
Comment by external bulletin — 18 November, 2009 @ 10:41 am
“Respect IS part of the working class left.”
The other one has bells on.
Comment by tyresome points — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
288* And the other one a ring through it?
Easy when you don’t have to make a political point isnt it?
It seems what armchair and others are arguing is that if you are colour and religion blind and base what you say on a socio economic and political basis, then Respect does have an implantation in a few areas that far outweighs ‘traditional left’ groups, even though they do not have a national implantation. Although of course winning 1, 2, or 3 MP’s would give them national exposure. the point about Viva palestina is also well made; a national and international initaitive from Respect with its limited base.
if however you see the w/c as white Trade unionists Respect is very weak, and No 2 EU much more formidable…
Comment by non-partisan — 18 November, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
OK, Tyresome, if you dispute the pretty uncontentious statement above, how come the SWP used to be part of it? Why did you waste time on respect in the first place if it isn’t working class left organisation?
Comment by RobM — 18 November, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Looking at the previous Barking and Dagenham election results, the Green Party are hardly a “crediable” force there either and Respect hasn’t stood. This leaves the Labour Party.
And so the tactic would be, to go and campaign for Labour, with our slogan being “to stop the BNP getting in”. And why will this tactic work exactly? The whole point that the BNP are getting votes in the first place is BECAUSE Labour have turned against all their supporters. We need to be giving voters, as well as activists, something more to positive to support. Turnout is going down and people increasingly disenfranchised with politics. Blindly backing Labour will do nothing to counter this whilst the BNP’s support will grow.
At some point or another, a credible left alternative has to stand against the BNP in order to have any effect. I fear that backing Labour candidates will demoralise and lose credibility. Plus, unless Labour change their policies, it will be a tactic of diminishing returns.
At some point a break will have to be made and I’m confident that the union backed “son of NO2EU”, Respect, other lefts and perhaps even Green Left will have a coalition capable of mounting challenges across the country.
Comment by Socialist V — 18 November, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
As to the BNP win in the NW, people are not undersyanding that part of the reason for this was that the BNP had made real efforts in the period 2004-2009 to build up their organisation in the parts on the NW where they did poorly in 2004, like Liverpool, City of Manchester and Cumbria. The calling for a vote for No2eu/Green/UKIP to stop them was of less relevance than the hard work the BNP put in over a 5 year period in the NW. It was results liek their 12.2% in Copeland and 10.7% in Halton which did it for them
The left thinks of the BNP as something we can stop or allow to flourish with what the BNP do as irrlevant. If they hadn’t concentrated on the localised party building accross the NW over a 5 year period, they would not have been in a position to take advantage of cicumstances. A lesson for the left here somehwere?
Comment by JimPage — 18 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
I think it’s fair to say that the entire no2eu campaign was a tactical disaster and, with that in mind, them standing in the North West was an even bigger disaster. This isn’t something that can be generalised into a position that says a socialist can never stand against the Greens where the BNP have a base - that will always be based on a concrete assesment of the situation. Nor do I think that there would have been any realistic chance of having the no2eu members or other left groups out campaigning for Peter Cranie - rightly, in my view, anti-BNP campaigning would have been a better option. I’m sceptical that that would have had enough impact to keep Griffin out anyway. But had all the forces involved being part of a concerted anti-nazi campaign and left a clear run for the Greens, things might have gone differently. But this is all a lot of ifs and maybes, and no2eu should certainly not be blamed for letting Griffin in. It’s just a lesson to be learned in future.
Comment by SWPerson — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
#290 Because at the time it established Respect, the War On Terror was a fundamental political dividing line, and it was a good idea to group together those like the Greens opposed to its logic.
#289 You non-partisan, that’s another good one. I see you disparage those outside Respect’s Muslim base (how is it ever going to break out) as “white”, an insult to those socialists and trade unionists that don’t see the colour of their skin as an issue. As to Respect’s attitude to working class organisation, I refer you to bill j at #258 above.
Comment by tyresome points — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
294* Where have I disparaged anyone?
I was making the factual point that Respect has far more w/c implantation in the UK than any other ‘left’ group.
This is true, based on its polling, and ts ability to organise in the w/c communities where it has bases.
The only way I can see that you can dspute this, is denying the Respect base is w/c? by saying what? instead of w/c it is Muslim?
Respect isnt a traditional ‘left’ party, but calling yourself w/c -socialist-revolutionary- etc is not as important as what you actually do and who you organise.
Respect organise among the w/c in the UK, have an electoral and political base in the W/c that could see up to 3 MPS returned. What tradional ‘left’
org does that? or close? or within a country mile? or on the same planet?
NO2eu or son of- may make a propagandistic (meaning even they don’t expect to get elected) foray into the election. On what programme? slogans? name?
I am not disparaging anyone - but lets be clear, those who come on here talking about Respects muslim base are trying to deny it is a w/c base. otherwise why point it out?
Does anyone talk about John McDonalds catholic base?
Or Tony Benns Anglican base?
Or Bob Crowe’s secular base?
Comment by non-partisan — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
This is all a bit “angels on the head of a pin”. Respect very clearly has a deeper electoral footprint amongst a section of the working class than any other left-of-Labour party. But it is not the largest organization by its own measures - apparently 800 members. And those 800 members are (my guess, correct me if I’m wrong) probably primarily focused on Respect as an electoral organization. It is not a “cadre party” and doesn’t have a big implantation or orientation to the trade union movement. And we could go through the SP, SWP, etc. in the same way, looking at strengths and weaknesses. So what?
Every left organization has strengths and weaknesses - which was why the question of some form of unity was raised in the first place. Differing strengths and emphases of orientation shouldn’t be the subject of pissing contests - they should be the subject of discussions about how to leverage those bases to further an overall left wing agenda (especially as you stand at the precipice of a Tory government).
Comment by redbedhead — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Its the event you’ve all been waiting for - Ultra Left Bloggers: The Drinking Game!
http://thefriendlylefty.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/ultra-left-bloggers-%E2%80%93-the-drinking-game/
Please enjoy with a dram if that’s your thing, and tongue firmly in cheek.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Poor old comrade, he has been a member of the SWP since 1992 and all this comes as a totally shock, he needs to get a grip. He belonged to a political group that operates democratic centralism, the curse of the English left, yet I would bet my pension, until he became a victim of it, he spouted on about how the SWPs version of DC was the best as it was operated on democratic principles as Lenin willed it (knock, knock there is a clue there) It is all the other left micro groups who operate the ‘wrong type of DC’
In 1992 he joined a party which was totally top down and due to its DC methodology has a self perpetuating leadership which was permanently set in Stone. Did it never occur to him why the SWP has perpetually much the same leadership. (You know the very same guys who have just shit all over him)
Over the years countless comrades have received the same leadership black spot he has now received; and for the very same reasons. they challenged the power of the SWP leadership clique.
Not once in the comrades blog or comments did he deal with the main issues, instead his problems are entirely down to a nasty full timer and leadership crony who has the ear of who?. (another clue there)
I could go on but I fear it would be pointless, as it would mean he would have to engage his brain. Thankfully like most of those who have fallen victim to the SWP black spot given time he will eventually get there.
By the way Chris Harman was part of the problem as he was permanently glued to the leadership chair due to DC.
Sorry to be so harsh, but as he sat on his arse whilst the SA was crashed and the same when the leadership he admired so much tried to do the same to Respect, I fear a bit harsh talking is what he needs.
Comment by Mick Hall — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
#295 “Respect isnt a traditional ‘left’ party, but calling yourself w/c -socialist-revolutionary- etc is not as important as what you actually do and who you organise.”
It doesn’t organise workers and workers, it is overwhelmingly restricted to muslim communities that it only organises to support the elctoral ambitions of its leaders.
#296 “they should be the subject of discussions about how to leverage those bases to further an overall left wing agenda”
But if some organisations aren’t interested in a left wing agenda they are a capitalist wedge rather than a socialist lever.
#297 I see the rules of your game point in a certain way. What about adding “Every time someone calls Respect a ‘broad class struggle organisation”? I suggest adding “every time someone uses the term ’sectarian’”, but that would be like using the term “the force” in a Star Wars drinking game.
Comment by tyresome points — 18 November, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
#299 ‘It doesn’t organise workers and workers, it is overwhelmingly restricted to muslim communities.’
Laving aside that I’m not sure what ‘workers and workers’ means, what are Muslim communities if not working class? You talk like you’re in the AWL.
Respect does very well in areas where there are high numbers of Muslims amongst the local working class. But their support is not confined to this group - and instead of sniping about it some are working to broaden the appeal, which its current political trajectory will certainly help do.
Glad you like the game.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 18 November, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Tyresome points has indicated several times that he/she is in the SWP.
I am not surprised in the least by the bitter sectarianism that comes from the people with “the best perspectives and clearest ideas”.
Comment by external bulletin — 18 November, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
“But if some organisations aren’t interested in a left wing agenda they are a capitalist wedge rather than a socialist lever.”
Well - that’s very clear then. Instead of these rather childish and destructive quips I’d commend the very sensible approach redbedhead outlines at #296.
As for work in the trade unions. Of course it’s important. For different socialists, as individuals or groups, it will reflect not only what the objective contours of the trade union struggle, but where they are able to exert some positive influence on it.
For Respect, that is above all assisting in developing the current Jerry Hicks has built in Amicus/Unite. Is that because it is the be all and end all of trade union struggle and politics in Britain? Of course not. It’s just that it’s somewhere where we believe we can make a positive contribution.
As well as redbedhead, tyresome might like to take a leaf out of the late Tony Cliff’s book. I lost count of the number of times that he told us about the almost obssessive focus of the predessors of the SWP on one factory in north west London - ENV. It was because the group had an influence there and that gave it a real interface in which theory and practice would interplay, with a chance of making an accurate assessment of results and adjusting its pretentions accordingly.
It really doesn’t do for anyone on the left in Britain to boast about their deep penetration into the organised working class. Socialist organisation and influence on mass consciousness is far weaker than it was 40 years ago when the far left moved from the ghetto to first find a modest base in the working class movement.
There are central strategic questions about how we can reintegrate the socialist tradition into the contemporary working class, build working class organisation and create the political spaces where ideological and strategic questions can be discussed in a “this-sided way”.
Serious people, from a variety of traditions, are trying to address those questions in a non-dogmatic way. The late Chris Harman was one of them and, whether you agreed with his main theses or not, they were generally thought-provoking and helpful.
Those who believe they are representing that tradition by throwing out sardonic and purile points which they think show their political purity and others’ renegacy are in fact doing it a disservice.
I’m confident that as events play out that most people on the left will readily distinguish between those who are serious and those who can’t rise above narrow sectionalism.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 November, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
News just in -
The referendum on having a directly elected mayor (plus cabinet) or a four-year leader (plus cabinet) in Tower Hamlets has now been formally triggered. As predicted, those who claimed that the 20,000 signatures that have been submitted calling for it would be winnowed down to a less than the threshold on account of presumed fraud have been shown to be totally wrong.
There will now be a big campaign in the New Year pitting the Labour/Tory/Lib Dem machines against a popular mood which thinks they’ve failed with a ballot in late Jan or early Feb.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 November, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Brilliant Kev
Ans also a focus that respect can use to bring supporters from around the rest of the country to help campaign; as it won’t clash with any other election.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 November, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Here’s the Respect media release:
Council confirm referendum for mayor has been triggered by petition
Tower Hamlets council’s chief law officer and Assistant Chief
Executive Isabella Freeman this afternoon confirmed that the
referendum to decide whether or not Tower Hamlets should have a
mayoral system of government has been triggered by petition.
“This is a fantastic achievement,” said Councillor Abjol Miah. “There
has been a tremendous feeling building up in Tower Hamlets that things
must change. That is why so many have flocked to sign the petition to
trigger a referendum after the Labour and Conservative Parties decided
they would not allow the people to vote on the matter. I want to thank
everyone who has helped to bring about this incredible result.”
George Galloway MP said: “This is a mighty blow for democracy against
the political establishment, both Labour and Conservative, who have
opposed this referendum. I am very pleased that this referendum has
now been called as a result of the efforts of so many across Tower
Hamlets. Now we will start the campaign for a Yes vote to establish a
mayor who can really begin to address the problems this borough faces
whilst being directly accountable to the people.”
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 November, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
EB (287), I think what it is that people are objecting to is this constant repitition of an argument that took place some five to six months ago over whether those around No2EU should support the Green Party candidate in the Euro North West constituency or not.
The Respect Party decided to support the Greens and those around No2EU decided not to - because they did not agree with the Greens’ policies, programme or overall outlook.
It’s no more the fault of No2EU than it was the fault of the Greens that the BNP won a seat in the region.
Yes of course, if one adds up the votes won by No2EU, one can make a mathematical calculation by adding those votes to the Green total.
But then one could also make a simlar calculation adding the Green votes to the Labour Party’s total and arguing that the Greens should also have stood down and supported Labour.
And neither exercise is particularly helpful.
Yes, as someone who actively backed No2EU at the time, I’d agree that there was a lot that could and should have been done better.
But frankly I’m surprised that you seem to think you can virtually accuse people of helping the BNP and then not expect them to react angrily.
You dish out that sort of abuse and you’ll get abuse back comrade.
Armchair (286), I’ve read your question on the other thread - apologies I didn’t se it before. Mate, I think that’s virtually an essay you’re asking me for and it’d probably try the patience of others here yet further.
But briefly, I think we seem to agree on many principles, I just think any alternative to the current political parties really needs to be crystal clear about its core aims and objectives. Workers collectively running their own workplaces democratically is actually a common-sense aim and one that, if put forward in straightforward terms, can win strong support.
What really frustrates me is the fact that so many of us on the left really do believe in these core aims, but for some bizarre reason, we seem to think that we have to hide these real opinions of ours from people. The argument for working-class state power actually never gets put does it?
Let’s organise together and argue for what we really believe in.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 November, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
As a member of Tyneside SWP may I try to put the record straight re. Alex Snowdon’s expulsion. At the district aggregate he attended he was questioned as to where he had obtained certain documents which had been circulated to members of the branch but refused to tell us their source. Now we were quite happy to receive any contributions to political debate but quite rightly members wished to know their source. Alex said he was not prepared to divulge this. Some of us even voted for his right to be represented as a delegate at the national conference. From then on he has not attended a branch meeting claiming intimidation.
If he had attended there would have been comrades in the branch ready to defend his right to express his opinions.
The fact of the matter is all those who have aligned with the Left Platform have not attended branch meetings in the last few weeks giving the same excuse, or alternatively, have organised separate meetings to the organisation, as in Sunderland
The branch, in the last few weeks, has held stimulating meetings and attracted and recruited quite a few new members either to the SWP or SWSS.
Sales of the paper have never been higher than now in recent months.The Left Faction if they want to have any influence are missing out
Comment by Jim H — 21 November, 2009 @ 1:30 am
And your point is? That he has been expelled for not revealing the source of some documents? What a naughty boy. Grow up!
Comment by Steve — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:37 am
Redbedhead is right - Respect isn’t a cadre party. The membership isn’t engaged on going out on the streets with stalls on Saturdays and whenever with the belief that the way forward is engaing with ones and twos and thinking that’s how you build a mass base.
Respect emerged out of a partial split in Social democracy to the left, whilst most other defections were to the right. In doing so, it encompasses a mass base (not cadres by definition) who were most disaffected by the war on Iraq. The war in Afgahnistan is a continuation of world wide islamaphobia, but it is Respect in East London and Brirmingham who have managed to harness any mass response politically - no one else.
The only other left force politcically is the Green Party who have progressive non-racist policies justifying electoral agreement. Why on earth shoould Respect put themselves inside an electoral bloc involving not advanced politics, but some of the most backward - including forces who think that we have to talk only of workers, ignoring presumably the petty bourgeois fight against racism?
We are told that three trade unions, including the Prison Officers support this project. Aside from the fact that it is only the leaders of those unions in a personal capacity, supposing it were true - what exactly is progressive about the Prison Officers Association? Ah, they’re workers, so that will do - never mind the politics.
NO2EU was a workerist diversion and Son of NO2EU will be no better (with the likely exception of Dave Nellist who would do well anyway)
With Social Democracy in such crisis, this bloc is a disaster. To date, I don’t think SWP support them. I hope they keep it that way.
Comment by Stuart Graham — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:14 am
The Left Platform claiming they are standing up for democracy is interesting. They have repeatedly put forward their various arguments at many party gatherings and in numerous party publications. Every single time they have been soundly defeated. How many more times are they going to reject democracy? How do these fifty five comrades, who claim to be in favor of democracy, justify their repeated rejection of the democratic will of the overwhelming majority of the party? Either you believe in democracy and accept the decision of the overwhelming majority of the party even if you do not agree with it. Or you do not believe in democracy and you reject the decision of the overwhelming majority of the party. It is either one or the other. I am sick of party resources being devoted to indulging these fifty five comrades. You lost the vote. Please sit down. Thank you.
Comment by Yet another SWP member — 23 November, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
#310 I thought the SWP was have a 3-month pre-conference discussion period - or are you opposed to differences being raised during this period as well?
Comment by KevinM — 23 November, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
So long as they accept the democratic decisions of conference I have no problem with it at all. But they have been down this road time and time again. And they have been soundly defeated each time. How many more times will it take before they accept democracy?
Comment by Yet another SWP member — 23 November, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
The Left Platform claiming they are standing up for democracy is interesting. They have repeatedly put forward their various arguments at many party gatherings and in numerous party publications. Every single time they have been soundly defeated… So long as they accept the democratic decisions of conference I have no problem with it at all. But they have been down this road time and time again. And they have been soundly defeated each time. How many more times will it take before they accept democracy?
that’s pretty weird because they were only formed about four weeks ago. so your ability to find other conferences and ‘many party gatherings’ where the left platform has been defeated previously is impressive.
as is your view of democracy. how many elections did it take in 1917 before the bolsheviks won a majority in the petrograd soviet, i ask myself. maybe the miserable anti-democratic bastards should just have given up straightaway.
Comment by Watery Keithmelon — 25 November, 2009 @ 1:27 am
#313 “that’s pretty weird because they were only formed about four weeks ago.”
Your authority to speak about such matters is pretty low, as you seem to have little idea about what the original poster was talking about. Indeed the left faction supporters carried exactly the same arguments, bar a few minor tweaks, at the last party conference in January. These viewpoints were debated fully, and defeated.
Comment by nnnnnnnnonsense — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:00 am
“that’s pretty weird because they were only formed about four weeks ago”
dry laugh.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:01 am
And indeed to further illustrate my point, in my branch we seem to have a regular discussion on such matters, because of the presence of a couple of their supporters.
Comment by nnnnnnnnonsense — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:02 am
Indeed the left faction supporters carried exactly the same arguments, bar a few minor tweaks, at the last party conference in January.
oh i thought last year’s conference was all about some weird personal loyalty thing to mr rees, that’s what i heard from people. was it not?
But they have been down this road time and time again.
one conference is ‘time & time again’, how strange
Comment by Watery Keithmelon — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:13 am
#317
“one conference is ‘time & time again’, how strange”
Yes oh how very strange indeed, they were someone else’s words not mine, do you expect SWP members to all meet and agree the correct form of english on blogs like this one to avoid any misinterpretations? Tss!
“that’s what i heard from people. was it not?”
It was the major debate encompassing the entire trajectory of the SWP, politically and organisationally.
Comment by nnnnnnnnonsense — 25 November, 2009 @ 3:59 am
318 “do you expect SWP members to all meet and agree the correct form of english on blogs like this one to avoid any misinterpretations?”
No, of course not. You wouldn’t be allowed to anyway- that would be factionalism.
The Centre will decide the correct form of words to use.
Comment by RobM — 25 November, 2009 @ 9:18 am
“oh i thought last year’s conference was all about some weird personal loyalty thing to mr rees, that’s what i heard from people. was it not?”
course its all ENTIRELY different now.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 10:41 am
“s a member of Tyneside SWP may I try to put the record straight re. Alex Snowdon’s expulsion. At the district aggregate he attended he was questioned as to where he had obtained certain documents which had been circulated to members of the branch but refused to tell us their source. Now we were quite happy to receive any contributions to political debate but quite rightly members wished to know their source. Alex said he was not prepared to divulge this. ”
And who thought up the idea that oppositionists should reveal their sources?
Zinoviev/Stalin.
Great.
Comment by bill j — 25 November, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Most comrades believe that what is really going on here is a fury at the idea that people who had been in the leadership for a long time were held accountable by the membership. And that further to the this hypocrisy the attempt to present themselves as representing a process (opening out democratic arguments) that that grouping in the party bitterly opposed (up to and including complaints that existing people who had dared to criticise anyone on the CC should be allowed on it) involves real cognitive dissonance when it comes to discussions of the spirit of the ‘anti-capitalist movement’ (”professional leadership” etc).
Increasingly it looks to me like a group of people who believe that they are the leadership in waiting, a small group of hyper-leninists whose political origins lie in the belief that all that matters is media appearences. In that sense its like an embryonic RCP. It looks very, very similar to me. And this represents a real departure from everything that is best about the SWP tradition. I also think its perfectly in order for a branch to know where documents and such are coming from when engaged in inner-party discussions and don’t see what this has to do with Stalin and Zinoviev.
In short most comrades don’t want a bourbon restoration. Which is what all this all about. No honest accounting of past mistakes. No honest discussion about the way foward. Just blanket denunciations of anyone who dared to criticise the way things were done when they were in charge of the ship. No thanks.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 11:13 am
#322
I am amused by the irony that back in 2003 and 2004, when JOhn Rees was told that SWP members in (IIRC) Scarborough, Lowestoft and Swindon were opposed to closing down the Socialist Alliance he dismissed us with the imortal phrase that we were “cheers from the cheap seats”. (In fact of course, people in small towns have a different relationship with other activists than comrades in cities, and perhaps we had some insight worth listening to on building long term collaborative relationships)
Yet when we look down the list of the Left Platform supporters, towns like harwich, Kings Lynn, etc appear,
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Well, this is the difficulty. The decision to wind down SA and go with Respect was I think a correct decision. The WAY it was done I think was a problem, but at the time (thankfully this is no longer the case) such criticisms would have been regarded as ‘non-political’.
I think that what lay behind this was a growing tendency of those involved in the political horse-trading that is an inevitable part of forging large scale political alliances to treat ‘the membership’ (note the passive term) and wider layers of ‘the activists’ (note the implicit sense of a division of labour behind the flattering term) as a kind of stage army and then confuse this with ‘Leninism’.
I’ll never forget a conversation with someone who responded to my query about whether the entire cadre could be wrong, with the phrase ‘thats Leninism’.
I think this is very far from being the case. Behind the rather messianic cries recalling the role of Trotsky or Lenin in the run up to the October insurrection (it is increasingly difficult to read this stuff with a straight face) is a set of adaptations to fairly conventional attitudes about relationships between leaders and led to be found in all mainstream electoral parties.
I’m struck by some of the parallels between criticisms made of the SWP by some that were to jump the other way (the membership fail to understand, the membership are not committed enough etc). Of course this was not dressed up as ‘Leninism’ in their case and so was, in my view, less disengenuous.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
#324
“The decision to wind down SA and go with Respect was I think a correct decision. The WAY it was done I think was a problem”
I agree.
If you recall, our position in what was then thr Socialist Unity Network (effectivly the majority of non-SWP members of the SA exec) was just that comrades needed more time to win the argument with people they had been working with for years, rather than descend from the mountail with the name of Respect carved in stone tablets.
Our position was that the Socialist ASlliance should join Resoect, support Respect in the 2004 euro electioons, and those socialist alliance branches who wanted to stand under the SA benner in the 2004 local elections should still be allowed to do so.
This would have given us time to conduct the argument in favour of Respect over several months, rather than making an ultimatum
It has to be said that Socialist Resistance in generall, and Alan Thornett in particular, chose to back John Rees on the specific tactics of bureacraticly closing down Socialist Allaince branches, so i find their position now a little disingenuos.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
“This would have given us time to conduct the argument in favour of Respect over several months, rather than making an ultimatum”
That there ought to have been a more open discussion both in the Party and in the movement is a point which is widely accepted after the debate and discussions of last years conference. ‘course its hardly helpful so long after the fact, but its worth mentioning.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
I don’t think either side in Respect were inclined to debate the polarisation in politics that had emerged prior to the split. In hindsight it’s nice to imagine that the crisis in Respect could have been handled more fraternally but this is wishful thinking.
For this reason I don’t think the split had much to do with democracy in the SWP. Even if a democracy commission had existed pre-split I doubt whether it would have placated those who were politically opposed to the SWP. The evidence for this is all over the current threads on SU attacking the SWP.
It’s important not to buy into the myth that the cause of the split was a lack of democracy in the SWP otherwise the political differences that brought about the split are conveniently covered up by those who who don’t want to address their own responsibility.
Comment by Ray — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Comment by Ray — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:32 pm - Very right Ray
The split in RESPECT had nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or lack of it in the SWP. According to George and his supporters the SWP was comprised of leninist dolls, something I took as an insult for some of us who spent a lot of money and time in building RESPECT. However, I don’t see the relevance of why what is happening in the SWP is of great importance on this blog. Some of us who identify with the SWP are in it fighting for democracy. Surely it is a futile exercise for those who are sharing their venom against the SWP with the rest of the when in reality they have nothing to do with the SWP.
Comment by florence durrant — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Well I’m not suggesting that there were not pre-existing tensions. I don’t buy at all the idea though that the incredibly damaging way things unfolded were inevitable, and were not badly mishandled. And thankfully, this is now pretty well universally acknowledged. Never in the entire history of our tradition did we come out of a united front having lost the entire middle ground, including many excellent people who are now very hostile to us. Linda Smith springs to mind. I don’t think there is any great secret that this is pretty universally acknowledged incidently. That there are many who would be hostile to us anyway and therefore leapt on the bandwagon I take as read. But its not a particularly poliically interesting or relevent point in terms of the lessons that we learn for the future.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Ray
I think that the rupture in Respect, and the ruptures that occured prior to that in the Socialist Alliance were not solely the responsibility of the SWP.
There were deep differences in political perspectives as well.
The issue is whether those political differnces could have been reconciled had there been a different attitude towadrs collaborative working by the SWP.
For my money the Socialist party behaved at least as badly as the SWP in the Socialist Alliance, and often much worse. And there were clearly also political problems with the way the smaller sects behaved, and some of the more prominent independencts were no saints. But even here we have to recognise that some of these bad habits grew up symetrically with the bad habits of the SWP. So there is a chicken and egg situatioon, where both sides can feel aggreived.
But at various critical junctures, John Rees in particular sought to use bureaucratic measures to resolve political problems.
And the political culture in the SWP did unfortunataly bring with it a sense of entitlement - that you are the leaders, the rest of us are the led.
Now having had an opportunity tot read the recent IB2, it seems that while the Left platform make some occassional good points, overall their perspective is hardly different from the CCs, except for some threadbare guff about flair and leadership, which is a barely disguised plea that they should be the leaders due to their high self-regard. But sadly, I think the CC’s response to them is also a bit apolitical and personalised.
The lack of political difference is graphically shown in Irelalnd, there the SWP leadership are simulataneouly proclaiming their loyalty to Martin Smith, while making a thoroughly Rees-ite turn to personality politics, and media glad-handing. (which to be honest is liely to turn out even less well given Irish political culture, than it would here)
Central to this argument, and which is unfortunatly not being acknowledged, is that JOhn Rees and Lindsey german learnt their particularly ruthless way of leading from Tony Cliff, without having his personal strengths. Total charm while you were on message, total ostracisation once you politcally agreed with him. Capricicious changes of direction, overturning democratic decisions and bypassing democratic processes justified as superior insight, and the need to respond like a combat organisation. All largely ego driven.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
I don’t see the response of the CC as at all personalised, but that I guess is a political difference.On Ireland I know nothing, but I would note that even hostile commentators have stressed that the differencs there have nothing to do with the dispute in England.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Johng:
I’m not sure if I qualify as “hostile”, but I’ll certainly confirm that the recent split in Ireland seems to have little to do with the factional situation in Ireland.
I think the point that Andy was making wasn’t actually about the Irish split though. It was more a general comment that the Irish organisation seem to simultaneously be operating a more-Reesite-than-Rees line themselves while vigorously backing the majority faction in the British organisation. He’s arguing that this shows that there isn’t really a significant political difference between the majority and minority factions.
I don’t think it necessarily implies that, for what it’s worth. I have every confidence in the Irish SWP’s ability to hold to contradictory sets of views simultaneously. I also have every confidence in their ability to work out which side their bread is buttered on in Britain, regardless of what they may actually be doing on the ground.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 25 November, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
JOhn
The unrelatedness of the expulsions in Ireland, is in a sense indicative of the essentialy depolitcisied nature of the dispute in the British SWP.
the fact that to anyone’s eyes the Irish SWP advocate a prespective very similar to the Left platform and have a political practice positively reaaking of the John Rees approach, while they simulataneoulsy loyally back Marin Smith and the SWP’s CC, suggests that the political differences in the British SWP are obscure, even to those close to the action.
Incidently, where I feel the CC’s response to the Left platform is personalised is by what looks to me like an attempt to cover up their own role in the more unfortunate events, and walk away implying that Rees, German and co were solely responsible for the various debacles. BUt in reality they all closed ranks in support of Rees, with the ridiculous with-hunt narrative that has caused lasting damage to relationships, and Chris Harman’s ignorant and borderline AWL narrative of the split published in the ISJ, that included unsubstantiated innuendo about sexism, etc, etc.
Perhaps inside the SWP you have had more frank discussions abiout what went wrong, but the system of collective responsibility on the CC, and the fact that Rees and German were essentially given unaccountable authority to run their franchise operations, need to be addressed if you wish to rebuild confidnce and trust with many who had their fingers burnt.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Andy, I think there is a difference between having made mistakes and acknowledging them, and having made mistakes and refusing to accept that these are mistakes. The problem of voluntarism (which I can remember being justified on the basis that in electoral campaigns any objective analyses would be counterproductive) is a political one, and I think analysed in both an empirical and an entirely political way. However, we do have substantive political disagreements which mean we’re unlikely to agree on this. Not that it particularly bothers me having substantive political disagreements with people.
Mark P, I’m simply not qualified to have a discussion about the situation in Ireland as I know nothing about it.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
There is also the option of acknowledging a mistake but seeking to put all the blame for it on someone else
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
JohnG is on the nail regarding the significance of the Left Platform, which is why I find it so bizarre that anyone here could have a scrap of sympathy for them, unless it’s based on the principle that anything the SWP CC do must necessarily be wrong. Clinging to that concept will only result in having to adopt grotesque distortions of other principles, not to mention the rewriting of history that would be required. In the case of at least one of the individuals concerned (Clare Solomon) I confess that it seems a shame that they’ve taken this route because I think they’ve been thoroughly misled from the start. The same may well be true of other supporters. But as far as the Left Platform as a faction is concerned, it deserves nothing but contempt.
On any reasonable reading of events it is the Left Platform leadership who treated both SWP and Respect members and supporters as a stage army in their own personal drama. All the blustering cannot hide the fact that in essence the Left Platform stands for the continuation, not only of Rees’s personal leadership but of the method and attitudes he typifies which led to the collapse of the SWPs engagement with Respect. The damage done to the SWP as a result was profound, but perhaps recoverable. It is recoverable, however, only on the basis of explaining how they ended up dropping the ball so badly and how their cadre ended up defending the indefensible. Not surprisingly the membership want to hold the leadership to account for their failures, as they should. To do so requires that the leadership accept collective responsibility - but that argument should not be used to provide cover for the (undeclared) faction of the SWP that was directly responsible not only for the general drift of the approach but also for the painful details of its execution.
What we end up with is the dreadful mockery of hearing Left Platform supporters complaining about the state of democracy in the SWP. Formally they may be right, but you have to ask yourself a different question, namely: how comes they’ve only just noticed? Could it be that their commitment to democracy extends no further than the requirement that their leaders not be held accountable for their actions when they were also leading the SWP itself? It sounds like the opposite of democracy, and should be treated as such.
When the (fumbled, now stalled?) SWP debate on democracy began it was precisely Rees’s supporters who argued that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the SWP in that regard, their argument being that there is no such thing as bad democracy, just bad leaders. They did so because they sensed, correctly, that the membership wanted more democracy not because they’d suddenly started hanging out with anarchists but rather in order to hold Rees, German, Nineham et al to account for the trail of destruction they created. Now, once that accounting has begun (and, in the case of Lindsey German, after more than 20 years on the CC) they suddenly discover that the SWP can be rather undemocratic. Well, forgive me for laughing out loud. You don’t have to agree with every detail of the disciplinary process that has been applied to see that the critique of the Left Platform faction by the majority is long overdue and should be welcomed. For my money it has actually been too tame.
Part of me feels genuine regret that the Left Platform position is so transparently self-serving and bereft of political merit: if they had anything substantial to say it might at least encourage a more thoroughgoing process of examination of the SWP by its members. As it is, the paltry nature of the position (which really amounts to claiming that Rees and his cohorts are natural leaders with a hell of a lot of charisma, dynamism and imagination….. what!?) practically begs for summary dismissal: I mean, Alex Snowdon’s blog reads like the ravings of some millenarian management consultant.
And yes, johng, it is all very reminiscent of the RCP.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 25 November, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
“335.There is also the option of acknowledging a mistake but seeking to put all the blame for it on someone else”
Thats always an option but its not the case here. One reason why the DC was instituted (in an atmosphere of extraordinary contempt and disdain by those who now call themselves the left faction) was what was referred to as the belief of many comrades that had their been structures of accountability in place much of what happened would have been unimaginable. Part of the emphasis on branches now is a direct result of these discussions. In the absence of such structures two things are impossible: firstly for any leadership to be able to properly assertain what is actually happening on the ground, and secondly for any leadership to be held properly to account for its actions. The full acknowledgement and discussions of these problems does not equate for me to a simple blame game. Those who persist in seeing all problems as the result of disobediance of one kind or another don’t agree.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
#336
” find it so bizarre that anyone here could have a scrap of sympathy for them”
I am not sure that anyone is expressing any sympathy for them, are they?
the Left Platform is essentially a case of spcial pleading that the leading individuals concerned have more flair and personality than the current CC, and are better on the Telly.
While the CC response is correct in so far as it goes in responding to that as “sour grapes and nostalgia for the recent past”, where the CC reply is weak is in not explicitly acknowledging the collective responsibility in constructing the political culture that allowed Rees and German to strut around like peacocks fondly imagining themselves as grand historical figures.
yes, yes, the specific cock ups were from Rees and his band of chums, but unless the majority of the CC also examines the way in which their own peculiar way of working created and supported Rees, then it is effectively a persnalised rather than a political rupture.
I did start to read the democracy commission reports, but they were dull, dull, dull. Fortuntaly for them, the SWP obvioulsy don’t wite their documents with an eye to keeping me entreatainsed, so I have no goundsfor complaint. BUt it did seem very much like tinkering without the bold thinking necessary about whether their whole model of party building might be standing on dodgy foundations.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
#337
JOhn
The proof will be in eating that particular pudding.
I think the arguments for a branch structure put by the CC are convincing, and it is obvious common sense, as also sensible is the idea that there are several members who becausue of work, familly and other commitments are not going to be able to go to branch meetings, and need to somehow still be included in the party’s life.
BUt there remains still the problem of the CC operating as a perpetual faction, and the relationship of the full timers to the national office, who have a vested interest in shovelling bullshit in both directions. Some of the stuff in the IB is a bit embarasing, such as where the SWP claims responsibility for turning the tide over Bj4BW in the Lyndsey Oil dispute.
When the ISO broke from London after Seatle, they had a quite thorough reevaluation of such negative effects of what they called “full-timer bullshit syndrome”, and also the “star system” whereby comrades in the branches were in or out of favour depending on whether or not they supported the current line.
None of what I saw in the Democracy Commission reports suggested that same level of self awareness and criticism as the Americans showed (and working for an American multinational, I am aware that self criticism doesn’t come easy in theri national psyche)
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
The proof is of course always in the eating. I’m unaware of the ISO documents you refer to, but then again, I’m not a great fan of accounts of national psych’s. So we will have to remain in disagreement on this one.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
oh, substantively, the problems you mention WERE in fact registered at some length. But its no judgement on you that you found the internal discussions hard to follow. No reason you should’nt have. They are after all internal documents.
Comment by johng — 25 November, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
#334:
Fair enough, johng.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 25 November, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
#338: “I am not sure that anyone is expressing any sympathy for them, are they?”
I was just trying to forestall that possibility. Call it anxiety on my part. But really my argument is aimed at those SWP members who have pre-conference aggregates coming up and may, indeed, have some misguided sympathy for the Left Platform. Not that they would be reading this blog. Oh no.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 25 November, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#343
Andy, I think the best chance of minimising support for John Rees in the SWP would be if you and I came out in public support of the Left Platform.
:o)
I say this of course in jest, I don’t have a dog in this race.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 November, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Exactly. Who outside of the SWP is interested in either side? They’re basically the same, its just one’s in power the other isn’t.
The side in power are now doing the dirty on the side that used to be in power. In due course, at some point in the future, it’ll be their turn. Plus ca change.
Comment by bill j — 25 November, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
313. Watery Keithmelon, your argument that the Left Platform’s failure to accept democracy is the same as the Bolsheviks fight to win a majority in the Soviets is flawed. When the Bolsheviks were in a minority in the Soviets they still abided by its decisions, fought and died implementing them, even when they disagreed with the majority in the Soviets. The Bolsheviks did not agree with the July 1917 demonstrations. But they took part in them despite their disagreement. They accept leadership. They accepted responsibility. They did not say “we don’t agree with the decision so we are not going to play ball anymore”. They said “We don’t agree with the decision, but given that we cannot convince you otherwise, let’s go and implement it together and then see the results”. That’s what the Left Platform should do. Otherwise how can the SWP test its ideas in practice?
Comment by Yet another SWP member — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Lenin didn’t accept democracy when he returned from exile in April 1917. Quite the opposite. He campaigned against the CC lead by Stalin/Zinoviev and their support for the provisional government. Indeed he said that if he wasn’t allowed to do so as a CC member, he would resign from the CC and lead the struggle against them as a rank and file member.
If the SWP had been in charge there never would have been a Russian Revolution.
Comment by bill j — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Is anyone interested in my story about what the SWP did at Essex University in 1984?
Comment by Armchair — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Re Andy W’s warnings that nobody should have sympathy for the left faction…
I think the SWP conference needs to both oppose the Left Faction, for the reasons he states correctly, AND do something about this culture we have acquired of dealing with political problems by disciplinary measures.
There is a more democratic culture in the SWP than a year ago, and I’ve seen plenty of signs in my own branch that we are moving away from a “star” syatem BUT if we keep this culture of dealing with political arguments by expelling people the leadership disagrees with, it’s pretty obvious that the democratic gains won in the past 12 months will quickly be lost.
I don’t feel a great deal of sympathy for any of John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Nineham - but Clare Solomon and Alex Snowden should not have been expelled.
One of the lessons we’ve still not learned from the Respect split was that the moment the CC pushed Kevin and Rob out of the SWP was the moment that the SWP leadership lost the support of any last winnable Independents on the Respect NC.
I’ll leave aside the point of whether expulsions are right or wrong in principle (Martin, if reading would be incapable of understanding that), but make the point at the level of tactics:
Most observers watching an expulsion automatically sympathise with the person it’s done to; even if in fact it later turns out that they have deserved it. Every time you exepl one person, the party loses 10 members or potential members. Expulsions are stupid politics.
Comment by Harrods — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Of course, Armchair but you will have to listen to my stories too….
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Yes please
Comment by VofH — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
…and get me drunk before I can face those memories.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 26 November, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
As for Clare Solomon - and James Meadway - were they ‘misled’? I haven’t seen any evidence that their activities were in fact ‘factional’, never mind which faction they were supposed to be associated with or whether factional activities should be disciplined.
Comment by Phil — 26 November, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Interesting post on another blog re SWP lying about membership numbers - confirms what most already knew.
“Regarding membership figures, the SWP didn’t have 10,000 even when Bambery et al were shouting that figure from every platform — so much for not lying to the class.
In 1998/9, when I was doing the annual party fund-rasing with one other, I was shocked to see the print-outs. Sparse, and with the members logged under different formats meaning four or five entries for the same person. EG, John Smith, Mr J Smith, Joanna Smith, Jay Smythe. These would all turn out to be the same person.The CC I spoke to wouldn’t let me correct the figures.
Phoning around meant running into a huge swathe who were angry that their names were still on the list when they had already demanded their names be removed. Some claimed they’d been asking for two years and been ignored. Again, the CC wouldn’t allow me to correct the figures.
I estimated the number of actual paying members at that time to be fewer than 2,000. And that’s at a good time of growth.
Another indication of size is how many people signed the loyalty letter around the Respect split. Around 1,400? A chunk of those will be fellow travellers. While some members might have been missed, with all the energy put into that drive, did several thousand members really refrain from signing?
John M and myself laughed at the claim of high membership because another way you can tell is by counting the delegates who turn up for conferences. There was a time that the Camden Town Hall venue would be full with seats all the way to the back of the hall and the balcony in full use. We saw it shrink to about two thirds of the hall and the balcony not opened at all due to no demand.
The importance of this is, not just about lying to the class, but about how you are supposed to accurately assess if your work is doing any good if you never know the correct numbers. I know that some senior cadre were worried yet nothing was done. All that being open about this point of principle got me was being targeted by certain CC and their hacks.”
Comment by Locke — 26 November, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
#354 Give us a link for that quote.
Comment by aarghh — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:03 am
“347. Lenin didn’t accept democracy when he returned from exile in April 1917”. What utter bollocks. Lenin won over a majority of the party with his April Thesis. He acted WITH the majority to overturn the strikebreaking policy of Stalin/Zinoviev/Kamenev, who were forced to accept democracy and fall in line with the majority of the party. That is what the Left Platform should do.
Comment by Yet another SWP member — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:54 am
“I don’t buy at all the idea though that the incredibly damaging way things unfolded were inevitable, and were not badly mishandled. And thankfully, this is now pretty well universally acknowledged.”
It’s not universally accepted on the left or in the SWP that the unfortunate way things were handled during the split was just down to the SWP. If that’s what your claiming John then you’re misunderstanding what the democracy commission is all about. Greater democracy in the SWP is to ensure that comrades have the chance to debate and shape policy and strategy. It’s not about compromising our politics to placate those outside the SWP.
As far as maintaining the middle ground is concerned that wasn’t on the cards at the time because of the seriousness of the political disagreement within Respect. There are a lot of people, including myself, who think that the way George Galloway and those around him behaved was indefensible but predictable in hindsight. Yet there has been no accounting of this in Respect so the political differences are subsumed under the John Rees behaving badly trope. In hindsight I don’t think John Rees handled the split very well but he was right about the political differences tearing Respect apart at a time when we weren’t attracting the Labour left nor the unions and our vote was dropping.
What’s important to remember is that comrades in the SWP put a lot of work into building Respect and a natural reaction to being described as so-called “Russian dolls” is to become defensive by going on the offensive. This kind of provocation by Galloway is not conducive to a fraternal debate and no amount of blame piled on to Rees or the SWP can vindicate his behaviour.
Lest we forget, it was Rees who had to go on Newsnight to explain Galloways adventure into Celebrity Big Brother. And it was the SWP who argued for Respect to stay together despite widespread anger in Respect at the CBB fiasco.
In the final analysis the SWP is trying to put its house in order but all I see are denouncements and arrogance rather than an honest accounting from many of those on here who condemn the SWP.
Comment by Ray — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:05 am
“It’s not universally accepted on the left or in the SWP that the unfortunate way things were handled during the split was just down to the SWP. If that’s what your claiming John…”
I don’t think that was what he was claiming. In fact I think that’s an overly defensive and frankly slightly silly reaction to his fairly measured comments.
It was implicit, at least from where I was sitting, throughout his comments that he thought that there were real problems in Respect going far beyond the SWP’s actions and indeed that the Galloway wing of Respect bore their share of blame for that. What he was saying was that the SWP’s heavy handed response made things worse (from an SWP perspective) than they had to be. That, for instance, there was no reason why, in a fight between Galloway and his allies and the SWP that the SWP had to lose the support or sympathy of all of the independents.
He might be being a bit blunter about it, but surely that’s the shared perspective of the SWP majority at this stage? That the fight was caused by wider factors but that the SWP could have handled the whole affair much more effectively?
Comment by Irish Mark P — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:40 am
Those people second guessing the SWP on its record in Respect should remember that we were trying to keep the coalition together while George was denouncing us as Russian Dolls. And may I please ask those people bemoaning the fact that the SWP lost a significant proportion of the middle ground in the coalition after George decided to try and smash the SWP element of the coalition, why were you not jumping to our defense? If you are now so concerned that we lost ground you will forgive me for asking what, exactly, did you do to fight this? The answer is you did zero. In fact worse than zero, you were cheering. So please sit down and stop pretending that you are anything other than sectarians.
Comment by Yet another SWP member — 27 November, 2009 @ 2:37 am
If it was really true that it was inevitable that we would lose the whole middle ground what were we doing involved in Respect in the first place? I simply don’t accept this at all, as one argument that flows out of such an analyses is that we should not engage in any united front work (I mean if such things are inevitable lets all go home). Since that is very far from being my position, or the position of the current SWP leadership, its a position which I don’t think we should take. Having said that, I entirely agree that many people (not all) on these threads simply like to take any opportunity to take a potshot. Of course. I also believe that many here have very different politics to ourselves. But this, surely, is the basis of united front work: you work with people you have disagreements with on a range of issues. Otherwise why bother? But I don’t really think that many of the people here are ‘our enemies’. We have rather more important battles to fight then that, and its important not to allow what goes on on a blog thread to distort your wider political perspective. Most on here, including those who say rude things, I’d be quite happy to work with outside of the blogsphere. This has nothing to do with political softness. In fact its the opposite. Mark P I think sums up what I was trying to say pretty well. Even if he is a running dog lackey of the bourgoisie, and generally hostile element. Nothing personal you understand Mark.
Comment by johng — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:04 am
hey billj - it’s not 1917. And what happened in Russia that year is not a stencil that you spray onto every situation to solve political problems.
Comment by redbedhead — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:09 am
#360:
No offence taken. Well, apart from adding it to my list of historical crimes of the SWP, scribbled in green ink in my book of grudges.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:20 am
“If the SWP had been in charge there never would have been a Russian Revolution”
This is of course possible. Not sure what would have happened if Bill J had been in charge though. Aside that is from excellent analyses of why the SWP were responsible for the failure of the Russian revolution.
Comment by johng — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:45 am
Er, Galloway didn’t call the SWP “Russian dolls”, and if he had, I’m not sure why that’s supposed to be an unforgiveable smear. It’s not as if he told a “Yo mama so fat” joke (although I wouldn’t put it past George, sadly).
Correct my understanding if it’s incorrect: Galloway criticised the “Russian doll” method of organising within Respect, whereby the SWP would caucus and then bring their agreed position into Respect meetings as a bloc, you know, dolls within dolls. You might disagree with that position and argue that parties-within-parties need to act in bloc, but I don’t see how the use of a figure of speech means a river of blood has been crossed and a nuclear option has to be used.
Sadly, I think I see Neil Williams and Ian Donovan similarly claim that George being sarky about their position is “redbaiting” and “witchhunting”. First time tragedy, second time farce, as Kevin Ovenden said.
Also:
“One of the lessons we’ve still not learned from the Respect split was that the moment the CC pushed Kevin and Rob out of the SWP was the moment that the SWP leadership lost the support of any last winnable Independents on the Respect NC.”
That’s certainly the point where I, personally, stopped being neutral over what was up in Respect.
Comment by Doloras LaPicho — 27 November, 2009 @ 5:09 am
The Respect Party will steadily gain representation over the next 10 years.The main reason will be its focus on multi-culturalism and its ability to put up a manifesto that all sections of the working class and its allies can relate too.
Tower Hamlets, Birmingham and Manchester have their feet on the ground in what works to advance those needs.
Neil and Ian should be working to advance all conference decisions, irrespective of them being losers
The main reason I am posting is “the Russian dolls” remark was at the time in Tower Hamlets Respect branches was being dragged down, by the putting off local members with the inane trot verbosity of the SWP. These self appointed keepers are
parasites to our body politique. They are doing a real job now splitting themselves asunder. Good riddance,
Comment by Larry N — 27 November, 2009 @ 7:53 am
….and there goes Larry RUINING things for EVERYONE. sigh.
Comment by johng — 27 November, 2009 @ 9:23 am
“Galloway criticised the “Russian doll” method of organising within Respect”
And he did it in mid-November 2007, after more than 2 months of SWP CC members poisoning every relationship they had.
“Those people second guessing the SWP on its record in Respect should remember that we were trying to keep the coalition together”
I am absolutely astonished at this claim. Does the poster above know anything about the history of the split?
FFS, the SWP demanded that 2 out of George’s 3 staff resign their positions with immediate effect!
Long before the official split, they were told they must resign from working with Galloway. It was the first or second week of October that the final demand was made.
Ask yourself, and be honest: In what way does forcing 2 out of 3 of Galloway’s staff to leave his employment work to keep Respect together? Had Kevin and Rob done that, the Respect constituency office would’ve had no staff, and George would’ve lost 50% of his parliamentary office. Think about that - what message was the SWP trying to send to Galloway? It would’ve taken a minimum of 2 months to find and train anyone new, yet Kevin and Rob were given just a week or two to resign their positions.
Honestly, you can make a lot of claims, but you can never claim that the SWP wanted to keep Respect together. You don’t completely cripple the office of the organisation’s only member of parliament and then claim to still want to work with him. (Bearing in mind that Galloway would never keep such a demand quiet, you can surely see that this demand helped to solidify the independent members into supporting Galloway’s side of the argument). (Also, for an organisation going on about democracy, the SWP never consulted any other member of Respect about its demand that Galloway’s office be left with no staff - surely, whatever you say about discipline, if you want to keep the coalition together, you at least make some phone calls before doing something so significant?)
It is comments above, about the SWP nobly fighting for its side, that show the paucity of debate within the organisation. There is absolutely no way to deny that forcing Kevin and Rob to resign would’ve totally destroyed any possibility of working with Galloway. It doesn’t matter who said what at any other point, whether the SWP was right or wrong: Demanding that George’s closest 2 staff, 2/3 of his office, resign immediately, shows that the SWP had no intention of keeping the organisation together. And this was done in early October.
George even wrote to the SWP asking them to reconsider because his office - and his ability to serve constituents in one of the poorest parts of the country, where most cases are about housing - would be completely shut down if the SWP got their way. Martin Smith refused to even budge.
Ask yourself, did the SWP really hope to keep the organisation together when it was doing things like that?
This is what George wrote to Martin Smith after Smith told him he had instructed Kevin and Rob to resign:
“Lastly, your professed wish not “to further disrupt comradely relations between us” is incredible. You have attempted, without even talking to me in advance, to force the resignations of my two closest members of staff, on pain of expulsion from the organisation they have collectively been members of for half a century.
Respect has one MP. You, a component part of Respect, are, without reference to anyone else in the coalition, seeking to remove at a stroke the entirety of that MP’s political staff. How would the MP’s office then operate? How could this conceivably contribute to strengthening Respect, an aim you claim to share with the rest of us?
At this stage, and taking account of the wild gyrations the SWP leadership have engaged in over the last six weeks, I can think of no course of action more calculated to prevent the establishment of “an effective working pattern between us”.”
Comment by not an swp member — 27 November, 2009 @ 9:37 am
“I simply don’t accept this at all, as one argument that flows out of such an analyses is that we should not engage in any united front work”
Or maybe it just means that the SWP should reconsider how it conducts its relationships with others.
Comment by not an swp member — 27 November, 2009 @ 9:40 am
#360 Johng, it is surely worth trying to work out what happened that caused virtually all the non-SWP members to take the other side when the split occurred. It was not due to local SWP members’ lack of hard work in many parts of the country. It had much more to do with an approach that prevented a real internal political life developing and a perception - justified or not - that Respect was treated as an adjunct of the SWP with a direct tranplantation of political methods unsuitable to a formation like Respect.
It is a rich experience that repays critical examination.
Comment by Liam — 27 November, 2009 @ 9:43 am
I don’t share Larry’s glee at the SWP current crisis which has its orgins in the Respect split. But if Ray’s comment is anything to go by, not much is being learn’t from it. He says:
‘As far as maintaining the middle ground is concerned that wasn’t on the cards at the time because of the seriousness of the political disagreement within Respect.’
Really? What were they then? What SWP differences do you think still stand up?
Left-right split? C’mon. Surly even you must accept that after the behaviour of the people you held up in Tower Hamlets to be the ‘left’, and who subsequently joined Labour and the Tories, that one no longer stands up. The reality is that since the SWP departed Respect our general political direction has changed only to make us less sectarian towards the Greens. Surly a positive development.
Communalism? To his credit Johng has openly admitted the use of the concept by the SWP was inappropriate in helping explain some objective realities and pressures Respect faced. The political justifications behind the use of the term as outlined by Chris Harman in his ISJ article were simply ripped apart, one by one, by Salma in her response. Read or reread…
Socialist witch hunt? Dolores provides such a concise rebuttal to a lie which gave rise to one of the most cynical and manipulative maneuvers I have ever witnessed by the far left, the open letter, it is worth repeating:
‘Galloway criticised the “Russian doll” method of organising within Respect, whereby the SWP would caucus and then bring their agreed position into Respect meetings as a bloc, you know, dolls within dolls. You might disagree with that position and argue that parties-within-parties need to act in bloc, but I don’t see how the use of a figure of speech means a river of blood has been crossed and a nuclear option has to be used.’
Exactly.
‘the people around George Galloway behaved indefensibly’?
In addition to post 367, perhaps if you and others in the SWP had listened to concerns raised by your own comrades, (and I flagged up mine by writing to the CC, speaking directly to Martin Smith, forcefully challenging Lindsey German at a Birmingham aggregate and lots more besides) your organization could have avoided the crisis it since become engulfed in. Your leadership had it all pointed out to them. It needed political courage to act. None were up to that task and consequently all are collectively responsible for what subsequently happened. More worryingly none, to my knowledge, have distanced themselves from the political justifications for the SWP’s course of action as outlined in Harman’s article. That’s one of the reasons I find the crucifixion of John Rees somewhat nauseating in its hypocrisy.
Comment by Ger Francis — 27 November, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Look like the SWP is come apart
Comment by steelcityred — 27 November, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Can someone explain why the Respect split is being re-run yet again. It seems like faced with a new split they are trying to blame the SWP for their own problems.
Comment by tyresome points — 27 November, 2009 @ 10:16 am
“Correct my understanding if it’s incorrect: Galloway criticised the “Russian doll” method of organising within Respect, whereby the SWP would caucus and then bring their agreed position into Respect meetings as a bloc”
The flaw in this argument is that if this had been happening then why did it take so long for this to become an issue and why did it occur at that particular point in time?
That’s why, regardless of the way Rees, the SWP etc handled it, the split was not just or even mainly cause by a clash of personalities or a heavy handed approach.
“In fact I think that’s an overly defensive and frankly slightly silly reaction to his fairly measured comments.”
Well you would wouldn’t you?
“If it was really true that it was inevitable that we would lose the whole middle ground what were we doing involved in Respect in the first place? I simply don’t accept this at all, as one argument that flows out of such an analyses is that we should not engage in any united front work”
I don’t think it precludes united front work to point the problems in this case. I also don’t think it stops the SWP working with others if it has a different interpretation of the split.
The concept of holding the middle ground is quite unclear. If this means finding a middle ground then I don’t believe that it was possible at the time for reasons I’ve stated. Both sides need to be willing to achieve this and sometimes relationships are just irreparable. Despite mistakes made by the SWP all the talk on SU of the SWP going nuclear is just an excuse for Galloway to ignore his own part in the split.
If and when the SWP does form another electoral alliance I would like to see a much more boundaried approach to working with others. By that I mean that the SWP makes it very clear upfront how we will work with others and actively promotes the internal democracy of the alliance. So if a leading member of the alliance does decide to appear on TV in a reality show there is a proper investigation and a democratic debate about whether disciplinary action is necessary. It also means that we don’t substitute ourselves if activity has to be done by the alliance. If not enough members from outside the SWP are involved in activity then this needs to be discussed and the problem resolved.
Comment by Ray — 27 November, 2009 @ 10:26 am
“I don’t share Larry’s glee at the SWP current crisis which has its orgins in the Respect split. But if Ray’s comment is anything to go by, not much is being learn’t from it.”
It’s rather an ironic point to make considering the dearth of discussion and debate in Respect about your own culpability in the split.
“Can someone explain why the Respect split is being re-run yet again. It seems like faced with a new split they are trying to blame the SWP for their own problems.”
I think this is one of the more insightful posts in this thread.
Comment by Ray — 27 November, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Crisis? What crisis?
Comment by KrisS — 27 November, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Why thank-you Ray.
Comment by tyresome points — 27 November, 2009 @ 10:51 am
ditto comment 375. The SWP is having a (very unneven) faction fight. I think that the Left faction will get trounced and that will be that. There ain’t no crisis.
Actually things like paper sales, recruitment and attendance at the recent series of rallies are all up (compared to last 5 years or so at least).
To Ger: I can see the point about Rees as sacrificial lamb to some extent, but there has also been some fairly self-critical stuff at meetings and last years conference from the cc. Its just not all been written down in IBs (dirty washing has been done in private), and all the gory details haven’t been gone into as much as some might like.
Comment by swp member — 27 November, 2009 @ 11:09 am
tyresome, KrisS and Ray - Respect is doing rather well - Sparkbrook byeletion victory? It’s fairly obvious that the split two years ago was damaging, but that damage is now behind us and there is a clear drive towards the forthcoming elections. The SWP, however, continues to suffer from the fallout of the split. Hence the faction fight that is going on now and the ongoing damage to morale. So if I were in your shoes, I wouldn’t be making cracks about crisis, what crisis or predicting splits in someone else’s organisation.
I hope the SWP can get out of the damaging cycle its been in and even re-engage with electoral politics. What’s your thinking about how the SWP can make an impact in the general election, thus helping the left as a whole to advance?
Comment by Nas — 27 November, 2009 @ 11:10 am
swp member: that’s encouraging. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that there has to be a public mea culpa. But if that self-criticism is to have any impact on the SWP’s relations with others, then it will be necessary for the new thinking to be communicated to those others if they are to rebuild trust and co-operation.
Comment by Nas — 27 November, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Somebody claimed the SWP is ‘about to collapse’. It is not. Any organisation with money sufficient to employ a full time staff, produce propaganda, recruit students etc can sustain itself. But what are they building? A political strategy which simply reduces the construction of a socialist current in the UK to ‘building the party’, and which flip flops between this or that ‘united front’ accordingly, is ultimately a sectarian one. And the history of those that advocate it in this country is that their political purchase on the broader public is very limited as a result.
The tragedy for the SWP, and those more broadly interested in the growth of a Marxist current in British politics, is the way in which the SWP messed up the unique opportunities presented to them in the aftermath of 9/11 to permanently implant their politics in a mass audience. To do so required new thinking, strategy and tactics. It required innovation. It required risk taking, breaking with past habits and practices to really immerse one-self in the new political waters. John Rees at least had the ambition and vision to think in such a manner, and try steer the SWP in that direction and through the dangerous routes ahead. His ultimate failure is not just down to constraining objective realities, personal failings, a collective failure of leadership, although all are major contributing factors, it is also intertwined with a critical political weakness of the IS tradition. That for all the talk about over throwing capitalism there has been a complete under theorization of how a Marxist current up to that task can be built in advanced capitalist countries in the 21st century, and the necessary strategy and tactics required to that end.
Comment by Ger Francis — 27 November, 2009 @ 11:16 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtbMYIBQXo
Comment by Hugh Jampton — 27 November, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Nas - I’m not making any predictions about Respect. Nor about the SWP, as it goes. It’s just that there isn’t a crisis in the SWP. Maybe you just have a lower bar for such things, which is fine. I think it’s best if people don’t make predictions about how other organisations might or might not turn out. At best, take it to the bookies.
Comment by KrisS — 27 November, 2009 @ 11:21 am
#370: “I find the crucifixion of John Rees somewhat nauseating in its hypocrisy.”
I agree that the rest of the CC (and, more importantly in many ways, the cadre) share responsibility for what happened. But they do not share it equally, and it doesn’t follow at all that the attack on Rees is hypocritical. The few SWP members I have spoken to are privately only too well aware of their, er, collective guilt. They don’t shout about it too loudly: who would? But that makes them all the more determined to deal decisively with the Left Platform since it stands for the continuation of the methods and attitudes that led to the disaster, whereas the majority position at least recognises that vital mistakes were made. More than that, it accepts that those mistakes were made because of an inverted idea of leadership in which it is the job of the rank and file to serve the ambitions of their leaders rather than the other way around. That is a very significant admission which goes beyond the details of the Respect split (dodgy cheques, who spat in who’s coffee, etc.)
The Left Platform supporters, on the other hand, deny even that mistakes were made on their side, let alone accepting responsibility for them. They believe there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a top-down style of leadership provided only that the right people are at the top. Their reason for adopting that position is perfectly simple and pellucidly clear: the moment you admit that mistakes were made it follows that the primary authors of those mistakes should be held to account for them, and the primary authors in this case don’t like that idea one bit. I think people need to be big enough to get over their grievances with the SWP as a whole, or at least not let them lead them into providing left cover for the real architects of the disaster.
The real problem is that the Left Platform are likely to be defeated all too easily (what with the platform itself being essentially apolitical chest-beating and staggeringly hypocritical moralising) and that the remaining members will think that consequently they can now put the past safely behind them. I don’t think life is as easy as that: without an overhaul of party democracy and a proper holding to account of the CC they run the very serious risk that the situation will only be repeated in future. I can understand that many members will feel they’ve had quite enough excitement and turmoil for the moment, thank you very much, but they should ask themselves seriously: is it really worth risking ever having to go through the same turmoil and embarrassment again?
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Well attended SWP ‘Return of Marx’ Rally in Edinburgh last night, included around 30 non-members. Thought you’d like to hear about it.
Comment by Anonymous — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
#384: “included around 30 non-members”
problem solved!
That rather reminds me of the comedian Arthur Brown’s opening line when he played a gig one year at Marxism, pointing at a poster on the wall nearby:
“‘A World in Crisis’?
A meeting in Hammersmith?
… Nice response!!!”
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
#378 A third of Respect is being told by the rest to pack its bags and leave. That’s not predicting a split, that’s just staing the obvious.
Holding your vote in Sparkbrook? If that’s the only evidence of doing well, I’d be fascinated to see what doing badly is.
You hope that the SWP or some section of it is going to pretend that the rightward shift Galloway took Respect in never happened and doesn’t continue to this day. I predict disappointment.
Comment by tyresome points — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
#386: “I’d be fascinated to see what doing badly is”
the Left List results?
isn’t all this tit-for-tat rather tedious?
If Respect do badly, that’s bad news for everyone, surely?
What’s to gloat about?
It really is quite…. tiresome
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
“A third of Respect is being told by the rest to pack its bags and leave.”
No they haven’t. The only way you could possibly read that out of the situation is if you thought that someone arguing with you was the same as a witch-hunt… hang on, that is what you believed at the time of the Respect split isn’t it.
The difference is that people in Respect do not mistake a debate about direction with McCarthyism. As for your predictions. I’m sure you will be disappointed.
Anyway, what is your view of how the SWP can best contribute to a left challenge at the elections?
Comment by Nas — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Indeed Andy.
The bigger, and more interesting question for me, is not whether socialist paper sales have increased, or x numbers have attended this or that rally, or whether very challenging political conundrums can be reduced to a lack to internal democracy or leadership styles, or the latest SWP shenanigans, it is, in light of obvious past failures, what strategies are required to build a socialist current which has purchase on mass consciousness? This question is framed in this instance around the SWP, because of shared history of the participants on this thread, but it is much bigger than them.
Comment by Ger Francis — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
The real problem is that the Left Platform are likely to be defeated all too easily
It does seem as if it will be less of a serious debate and more of an annoyance that needs getting past. We’ll see.
Comment by KrisS — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
“The real problem is that the Left Platform are likely to be defeated all too easily (what with the platform itself being essentially apolitical chest-beating and staggeringly hypocritical moralising) ”
But don’t forget the compltely hilarious theorising on Luna 17 blog
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
KrisS,
Do you think SWP’s better off not being in Respect anymore then?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 27 November, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
#387 Not for those who prefer class politics.If Respect prosper their brand of class-collaboration will continue to be toxic to the prospects of left unity, but thankfully that’s unlikely to happen.
#388 Mark Perryman has picked up where Galloway’s rant finished:
“I’m so relieved that in the not too distant future I won’t have to endure the embarassment of being in the same political organisation as you and your co-thinkers. Goodbye.”
Comment by tyresome points — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Well, there’s a massive question asked in a small number of words.
I think the split was a blow to us all. I don’t know that it could really have been avoided. I am not sure how we would have sorted ourselves out to the extent we have without something like that having happened. I find it hard to construct an alternative universe in which Respect is as it was.
Difficult to answer “yes” or “no”, though in the end, I have to say the end of the project was definitely a negative.
Comment by KrisS — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
“class-collaboration”
Well, if that’s your kind of view, I hope you enjoy the micro-universe you inhabit. Thankfully, I don’t think this is the view that is emerging in the SWP. I’m finding more and more people who, as “swp member” above suggests, will confide that the Rees-inspired split was a huge mistake and who seem genuinely to wish Respect well.
I don’t think that will turn into anything substantive before the election. But the tone is certainly helpful to future co-operation after it.
Comment by Nas — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
As you care to mention it…
Well if you’d be happy to be in the same organisation as ID you’re welcome to him. As he has repeatedly stated Ilm a class enemy, anti-trade union, SDP supporter and anything else that occurs to him to call me with zero basis in fact I am presuming he isn’t particularly enamoured with being in the same organisation as me either.
I may be a pluralist, but not that plural thankyou very much. I wish ID well in an organisation more suited to his politics.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
#383 Great post - agree completely. Neither the left faction nor a different version of the same lack of democracy.
Comment by Insider — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
All I’m getting is more disengenuousness from the SWP on here. Rees didn’t launch operation Wreckspect the SWP did. It may even have been launched against his wishes but he then loyaly went along with it as you tend to do when you are in a sect.
Rees is now getting the CC treatment. I hope he comes through it and I hope he and his friends and comrades learn from it, find their way back to Respect, are able to carry out exemplary work within it and are also welcomed back, with that understanding, by Galloway and the rest of the Respect leadership.
#393 Mark P hasn’t expelled anyone he has merely invited a group of people that appear deeply unhappy and yes, a little disruptive to leave if they so wish. It is good that they haven’t and I hope that they don’t (no organisation can progress without political discussion except in the land of the idealists). That is somewhat different to the SWP’s approach to political differences no?
Comment by David Ellis — 27 November, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
In terms of the treatment of John Rees: as I understand it the Offu cheque business is featuring reasonably largely. It seems that the leadership and its supporters are angry that Rees’s only reaction to the debacle is that he has apologised. They say that he has failed to understand or acknowledge the seriousness of what he did.
I’m sure that’s true. But the same is also true of the leadership. It was they who swept aside concerns about the Offu cheque, one Alex Callinicos doing so with great distain that Galloway had spent so much time in a private meeting with the SWP CC explaining why it was so dangerous and wrong.
It’s also clear that when two members of the Central Committee were told about the cheque business in late August that they brushed it aside as well. Indeed, according to Alex Callinicos one of those Central Committee members claimed not to have known about the cheque business until December.
So while Andy Wilson is undoubtedly correct about varying levels of culpability, the complicity of the CC majority seriously needs to be tackled if genuine progress is to be made.
Comment by Nas — 27 November, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
#398: “I hope he comes through it and I hope he and his friends and comrades learn from it, find their way back to Respect, are able to carry out exemplary work within it”
exemplary [ɪgˈzɛmplərɪ]
adj
1. fit for imitation; model an exemplary performance
2. serving as a warning; admonitory an exemplary jail sentence
3. representative; typical an action exemplary of his conduct
exemplarily adv
given that you already know #3 to be the case, and have the recent experience of #2, surely #1 has already been ruled out?
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 November, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
#400 That’s quite brilliant.
Comment by Insider — 27 November, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
I have to say I’m a bit more interested in Clare Solomon and Meaders than in John Rees - actually, a lot more. The Mutiny initiative doesn’t sound remotely like some sort of Reesite crypto-faction, nor has any evidence been presented that it was. So it sounds to me as if what the new leadership is doing is less a move to the Left, more the classic left-right disciplinary shuffle described by Victor Serge in Midnight in the Century: purge the Right (class-collaborationist Reesites), then trim back to the Right by purging the Left (the SOAS den of autonomists). (It was the other way round in Serge’s example, i.e. Left then Right; also, the person carrying out the purges was Stalin rather than Martin Smith, and the consequences of being purged were a bit more serious. But otherwise there are a lot of similarities.)
Comment by Phil — 27 November, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Nice theory Phil, but it is a reasonable assumption Solomon and Meaders are/were LF supporters which, of course, makes the Mutiny thing objectively right-wing (depending how you look at it) and that is, surely, enough to hang ‘em…
Comment by RobM — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
#391: “But don’t forget the completely hilarious theorising on Luna 17 blog”
Satire? (see the anonymous contributions)
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
What’s weird about this is really how little there is between the two sides. Nothing at all from what I can see. Some trivial differences around orientation.
And of course how determined both sides are not to learn anything from the events.
Rees and co are denounced as heavy handed bureaucrats who opposed democracy. No kidding. Like that wasn’t obvious for a long time.
And just to rub it in Smith and co are now acting like heavy handed bureaucrats who oppose democracy. It goes with territory. Its what these party apparatchiks do. (Funnily enough, even after they’ve left, if accounts of the Respect conference are true. Transferable skills I suppose.)
Round and round and round and round and round it goes. Until it all disappears down the drain.
Comment by bill j — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
“What’s weird about this is really how little there is between the two sides. Nothing at all from what I can see. Some trivial differences around orientation.”
Yes Bill, but we weren’t discussing the Workers Power / Permanent Revolution split…
Comment by RobM — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
“Round and round and round and round and round it goes. Until it all disappears down the drain.”
Hopefully a self assessemtn by Permanent revolution of their prospects.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Told me again. Good job I’m not sensitive.
Comment by bill j — 27 November, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
“It is a rich experience that repays critical examination”
Well yes but I might not have exactly the same analyses as the international socialist group.
Ray: middle ground means almost every single leading figure in Respect aside from us.
Comment by johng — 27 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
…oh and I should add, a few of our own left as well. In general we enter the political terraine to gain influence. Not lose it. Sorry, I’m being blunt again.
Comment by johng — 27 November, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Be as blunt as you like. What are you on about?
Comment by bill j — 27 November, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Johng, Your “everone” never ever included anyone the outside the SWP.
Comment by Larry N — 27 November, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Bill that was’nt directed at you. This is though. When you say that differences are nothing more important then orientation you are aware that to the untrained eye this just reads as ‘differences are about nothing more important then what we should do’? And that most people regard this as a subtantive kind of difference (ie a difference about what you should do). Larry N, I’m afraid I’ve got nothing for you.
Comment by johng — 27 November, 2009 @ 6:37 pm