First election to SWP leadership in years

[poster342002]

In the long term, I would have said so, yes. Were this not so they wouldn't be strange.

Bu this goes beyond strange into downright absurd. About as compatible bedfellows as an oak tree and a telephone kiosk. In fact, at least the oak tree could make a trunk call!

 

[levien]

Is it? Don't you think John's right in saying that "Every week Party Notes would report excellent sales here and excellent sales there, but the overall figures were never given, never even spoken about in private."

And what about his views on party democracy? What about the drastic reduction in members? How have the CC accounted for this?

I think his underlying message is: "Having an over-optimistic perspective was not, however, the most serious mistake. The most serious mistake was not facing up to it." I have yet to hear a CC member honestly admit failures, or weaknesses, or disagreements. This isn't healthy in any organisation.

Yes the bit about sales is never read by me I must admit but is ocasionaly useful to know, but that is a tiny fraction of the content (and hasn't been in there for last few months I think)

And the CC did admit mistakes in the small branches that was the main thing at last years conference when these membership figures came out. Why we had a change in perspective.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

The SP approach is to propogandise as if they are the ones with all the answers and all any one else can do is listen and learn. ...

Rushes to the defence of the SP ... Not true, not true!!!

After all in 1995 they were prepared to organise a tour round the British Isles giving a platform to listen and learn from one Billy Hutchison of the Loyalist para-militaries in the North of Ireland! For those who don't know, 'socialist' Billy is a convicted murderer and self-confused "sectarian bigot", who called for the RUC (the real one that is!) to get the "fucking fenians off the streets" in reference to the children and parents from Holy Cross School in Ardoyne

 

[neprimerimye]

Our biggest problem in districts like mine and Johns is local organisation is a bit of a mess. When district/area committees are working and producing local district notes for branches then their is a mechanism for debate at the rank and file level of the party which can be transmitted up to the NC/party coucils etc and argued out.

Our fundermental problem is leading local comrades don't want to take time out of campaigning to sort out the local organisation and are to willing to let district organisers substitute for a proper elected and accountable district leadership. Maybe John M would be an asset in facilitating this but we can't say because he hasn't mentioned it.

Levien I find it very curious that you argue that comrades are too busy campaigning to take the time to properly sort out local SWP organisation. You tell us that the problem is that everything is left to the district organiser when such tasks should be within the purview of an elected district committee.

Which sounds very good indeed and i wish you luck in developing such a structure. But should you achieve that aim then i suspect that you will come in for a bit of a shock. If only because in case of any dispute between the appointed full timer and the elected district committee the constitution of the SWP gives the unelected organiser the final say. In practice the elected district committee is then subject to an appointee of the central committee.

Which would be fine IF the CC operated as something other than a monolithic faction dedicated to preventing and derailing any potential challenge to its perspectives which, as we know, are not discussed and decided uon by the membership of the party but by the CC and selected insiders only.

And the perspectives of the CC are that everything is more or less fine and their are great opportunities ahead. All that need be done is follow the lead of the CC and that lead dictates a cycle of building for the next big event to the detriment of recruitment and education of a Marxist cadre within the mass organisations of the class and in the workplaces.

That this perspective is both short sighted and over optimistic is in my opinion proven by the failure of the CC and John Molyneux for that matter, to even mention the debacle in the PCS late last year. Failures such as this are passed over in silence, wehn they are of fundamental importance to a party yhat claims to stand for the self emancipation of the workers, while electoralism, once thrice damned, is lauded as a great leap forward.

Something is wrong somewhere and its not Molyneux's anodyne critque.

 

[Macullam]

Rushes to the defence of the SP ... Not true, not true!!!

After all in 1995 they were prepared to organise a tour round the British Isles giving a platform to listen and learn from one Billy Hutchison of the Loyalist para-militaries in the North of Ireland! For those who don't know, 'socialist' Billy is a convicted murderer and self-confused "sectarian bigot", who called for the RUC (the real one that is!) to get the "fucking fenians off the streets" in reference to the children and parents from Holy Cross School in Ardoyne

Must have missed that one but i do remember the SSP giving him a platform around 1999.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That would be all well and good if as part of that fraternal debate you empasise the fact that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history". I agree it is necessary to engage and work with forces which don't accept the need for revolutionary demands. But ON NO ACCOUNT does this justify the attitude of self-censoring of socialist argument that the SWP adopts in its so-called 'united fronts'.

Your wrong. We do NOT have to lecture them from the podium. We can prove that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" through activity, and saying in our oppinion that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" when they ask us. But it is the activity that is the clincher.

Let me put it another way. You can take a horse to water, but you can't Make it drink. You can tell people you cannot make poverty history without making capitalism history, but unless capitalism and material circumstances in which they live have convinced people of the necessity of revolutionary change, you cannot force them drink in the ideas.You have to respect the debater, and at least genuflect the possibillity you may be wrong imo.

ANd how does it "strengthen" the revolutionary current to suppress directly socialist argument? Isn't the experience of Respect, that the SWP has put enormous amounts of energy into a loose, politically amorphous coalition with forces (some of which are downright reactionary) and is, as a result, failing to recruit and strengthen its own forces?

Yes AND no. yes it has not produced an increase in the membership of the revolutionary socialist socialist worker, but it has increased the influence and respect for revolutionary socialist amongst more reformist and anticapitalist workers than the Socialist workers party had. When capitalism has convinced those reformist and anticapitalist workers of the need for revolutionary change, socialist worker will be best placed. At least that is the strategy.

fraternal greetings resistanceMP3

 

[JoePolitix]

Irritable -

There's nothing quite so pathetic as reading one sectarian quoting another sects attack on another sect!

If that's the game we're playing lets see what the CPGB have to say about the SP's great system of party democracy:

"In common with much of the left, Militant/SP ban honest and clean public debate of the differences in its ranks - members are bound by an oath of silence, a travesty of the type of genuine party democracy that Lenin, Marx and the founders of our movement practised."

See the rest:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/478/spew.html

 

[TremulousTetra]

Levien I find it very curious that you argue that comrades are too busy campaigning to take the time to properly sort out local SWP organisation. You tell us that the problem is that everything is left to the district organiser when such tasks should be within the purview of an elected district committee.

it is true though in my experience too.

Which sounds very good indeed and i wish you luck in developing such a structure. But should you achieve that aim then i suspect that you will come in for a bit of a shock. If only because in case of any dispute between the appointed full timer and the elected district committee the constitution of the SWP gives the unelected organiser the final say. In practice the elected district committee is then subject to an appointee of the central committee.

it is not that simple though is it? The full-time organiser is not going to be in debate with the district committee, try to convince them, and possibly be convinced himself that the Central committee have it wrong?

Which would be fine IF the CC operated as something other than a monolithic faction dedicated to preventing and derailing any potential challenge to its perspectives which, as we know, are not discussed and decided uon by the membership of the party but by the CC and selected insiders only.

again it's not that simple. Do you honestly believe the grand aspirations of the Central committee members is just to be at the head of an obscure little political party, or do you think there is a possibility like me they aspire to socialism/communism?

And the perspectives of the CC are that everything is more or less fine and their are great opportunities ahead. All that need be done is follow the lead of the CC and that lead dictates a cycle of building for the next big event to the detriment of recruitment and education of a Marxist cadre within the mass organisations of the class and in the workplaces.

That this perspective is both short sighted and over optimistic is in my opinion proven by the failure of the CC and John Molyneux for that matter, to even mention the debacle in the PCS late last year. Failures such as this are passed over in silence, wehn they are of fundamental importance to a party yhat claims to stand for the self emancipation of the workers, while electoralism, once thrice damned, is lauded as a great leap forward.

Something is wrong somewhere and its not Molyneux's anodyne critque.

I too have a sneaking suspicion that there is something wrong somewhere. although I don't totally agree with John, I think I would like to see him get elected. however, so far I am not convinced John, you, or myself know what it is exactly wrong, and can offer an alternative.

(edited to add)fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Must have missed that one but i do remember the SSP giving him a platform around 1999.

Yes they did, and I've read that the SWP in (Northern) Ireland courted him as well.
From Socialist Democracy, Irish Section of the Fourth International, August 2001
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisIreland/News&AnalysisIreBillyTheSocialist.htm

 

[treelover]

Christ, you really are delusional, imo, the fundi SWP/GR and the Livingstone/Socialist Action cultists fundamentally undermined and even destroyed the ethos of the London European Social Forum(ESF) event.


i mean , selling Coca Cola, when Columbian Activists were present
(just a relatively minor example of how the the LESF was run...)

Moti said
GR without which mobilisations to demos and things like the ESF wouldn't have happened from this country...

 

[neprimerimye]

it is true though in my experience too.

it is not that simple though is it? The full-time organiser is not going to be in debate with the district committee, try to convince them, and possibly be convinced himself that the Central committee have it wrong?

again it's not that simple. Do you honestly believe the grand aspirations of the Central committee members is just to be at the head of an obscure little political party, or do you think there is a possibility like me they aspire to socialism/communism?

I too have a sneaking suspicion that there is something wrong somewhere. although I don't totally agree with John, I think I would like to see him get elected. however, so far I am not convinced John, you, or myself know what it is exactly wrong, and can offer an alternative.

(edited to add)fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

No its not that simple you are correct. But in practice the culture of the SWP is, and has been for quite a long time, such that the l;ocal fulltimer can as a rule carry the district committee without to much coercion. If nothing else the moral force of having the backing of the centre guarantees even the most inept fulltimer considerable weight.

All of which rather negates the point of the having a district committee if all that is debated is how to carry out the latest decisions of the centre. Surely every unit of the party and all fulltimers should be subject to the elective principle as Lenin argued in the RCP(B)? Prior to the suppression of factions and look what that led too!

All of which mitigates against the development of a democratic culture inside the party. the trouble is that the leadership itself act in such a way that the rank and file of the party have very little guidance as to how to debate politics rather than the mere discussion of how to carry out the line. Which relates in my view to the loss of any consitent orientation on the workplaces and the unions in my view.

And is it not in the workplaces that we traditionally claimed was the potential fulcrum of the workers struggle for state power? Is it not vital that a revolutionary group relate not only to the workplaces but to the best traditions of workers democracy which the shop stewards at their best represented and represent? bearing in mind that sho[p stewards however passive they might be at present are directly elected by those they represent.

As for the motivation of the SWP CC I'm not qualified to judge. It is in any case secondary to their politics. But I have no doubt at all that comrades such as Harman and Bambery are sincere revolutionists. But as regards German and Rees whatever their motivations might be, which I do question in recent years, they have been disastrous as leaders of the SWP if one accepts that they are the main inspirers of the current turn to populism.

I agree thought that Molyneux does not offer an explanation as to the current position the SWP finds itself in and he would seem to fear offering any kind of alternative. On the other hand I'm foolish enough to think that i do have some understanding as to how this lamentable situation arose and its roots. Elaboration of such an explanation is not best suited to these boards however.

 

[articul8]

Your wrong. We do NOT have to lecture them from the podium. We can prove that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" through activity, and saying in our oppinion that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" when they ask us. But it is the activity that is the clincher.

I did not say (or imply) "lecturing" people about anything. I said that socialists should debate with others, but a debate involves an exchange of (differing) views, not shutting up and manifesting your commitment through 'activity' alone (ie. activity in support of fronts, the precondition for involvement with which ususually seems to be a willingness not to advance socialist arguments). You (and the SWP) seem incapable of envisaging anything other than a) lecturing others and b) capitulating to the lowest common denominator - which is why as an organisation that SWP has 'swapped' between ultra-left sectarianism and populist opportunism.

When capitalism has convinced those reformist and anticapitalist workers of the need for revolutionary change, socialist worker will be best placed. At least that is the strategy.

You couldn't be more blatant - a tailist strategy. The failings of capitalism alone won't convince anyone of the viability of socialism, especially in the wake of Stalinism. A revolutionary party has to take an active role in promoting socialist ideas. This doesn't mean refusing to work with anyone who doesn't share your vision in full. But it does mean that you patiently explain the need to break with capitalism, even as you struggle for more limited objectives.

 

[moti]

treelovers of the world unite!

>Christ, you really are delusional, imo, the fundi SWP/GR and the >Livingstone/Socialist Action cultists fundamentally undermined and even >destroyed the ethos of the London European Social Forum(ESF) event.

Treelover, if a bunch of autonomists hadn't taken it upon themselves to try to stop the ESF from coming to London, and then attempt to block any attempt to set up an organising committee -which was needed so groups could affliate to so democratic organisations like unions could legally fund the ESF- and in the process of doing this completely alienating the unions and (the awful, admittedly)SA lot around Livingston, to the point where if we hadn't argued with them there would have been NO esf at all.

Our ESF got no funding from the government unlike Paris, in Paris anarchists tried to attack Socialists but were stopped by security, the Paris one was far worse for security etc..etc..in fact in all WSF/ESF's there's this tension because it isn't just an anti-capitalist event but one that includes all sorts of reformists, something the autonomists here ignore and just denounce people instead...like telling the secretary from Unison he doesn't 'represent' anyone....um..yeah...politcally inept and strategically idiotic....

>i mean , selling Coca Cola, when Columbian Activists were present
>(just a relatively minor example of how the the LESF was run...)

I couldn't agree more, but the problem was no one was willing to organise the food and drink, as all the moaners when asked to actually do something, you know so they could make the ESF like they want did nothing - and that was my direct experience of facilitating the cultural stuff, plenty of autonomists came in to the meetings often after several weeks of organising, telling us how it should be, continually trying to create divisions, some with mental health problems, some coming from the south of France(Mi5?) BUT crucially doing none of the work when asked

so forgive me if I'm fed up with people who moan about the ESF but did fuck all to make it happen...especially as some of the key autonomist ringleaders then got employed by the GLA as Babels workers getting paid 3grand more than all the other ESF workers....some 'horizontals'!

>Quote:
>Moti said
>GR without which mobilisations to demos and things like the ESF wouldn't >have happened from this country...

and my original point was that without us, the mobilisations to things like the G8 or ESF's abroad wouldn't have happened, because they wouldn't!

 

[butchersapron]

What's an autonomist moti?

 

[Pilgrim]

>Christ, you really are delusional, imo, the fundi SWP/GR and the >Livingstone/Socialist Action cultists fundamentally undermined and even >destroyed the ethos of the London European Social Forum(ESF) event.

Treelover, if a bunch of autonomists hadn't taken it upon themselves to try to stop the ESF from coming to London, and then attempt to block any attempt to set up an organising committee -which was needed so groups could affliate to so democratic organisations like unions could legally fund the ESF- and in the process of doing this completely alienating the unions and (the awful, admittedly)SA lot around Livingston, to the point where if we hadn't argued with them there would have been NO esf at all.

Our ESF got no funding from the government unlike Paris, in Paris anarchists tried to attack Socialists but were stopped by security, the Paris one was far worse for security etc..etc..in fact in all WSF/ESF's there's this tension because it isn't just an anti-capitalist event but one that includes all sorts of reformists, something the autonomists here ignore and just denounce people instead...like telling the secretary from Unison he doesn't 'represent' anyone....um..yeah...politcally inept and strategically idiotic....

>i mean , selling Coca Cola, when Columbian Activists were present
>(just a relatively minor example of how the the LESF was run...)

I couldn't agree more, but the problem was no one was willing to organise the food and drink, as all the moaners when asked to actually do something, you know so they could make the ESF like they want did nothing - and that was my direct experience of facilitating the cultural stuff, plenty of autonomists came in to the meetings often after several weeks of organising, telling us how it should be, continually trying to create divisions, some with mental health problems, some coming from the south of France(Mi5?) BUT crucially doing none of the work when asked

so forgive me if I'm fed up with people who moan about the ESF but did fuck all to make it happen...especially as some of the key autonomist ringleaders then got employed by the GLA as Babels workers getting paid 3grand more than all the other ESF workers....some 'horizontals'!

>Quote:
>Moti said
>GR without which mobilisations to demos and things like the ESF wouldn't >have happened from this country...

and my original point was that without us, the mobilisations to things like the G8 or ESF's abroad wouldn't have happened, because they wouldn't!

You seem to be under the impression that, if something isn't done by your lot, it doesn't get done at all, which is cobblers.

And, by all accounts, the ethos of the ESF was pretty much ruined by the way in which it was run. I remember Indymedia publishing complaints from all manner of people about the way the London ESF was run, and not just from Autonomists or Anarchists either.

And your remark about Autonomists who showed dissent having 'mental health problems' is crass at best and blatantly insulting at worst.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No its not that simple you are correct. But in practice the culture of the SWP is, and has been for quite a long time, such that the l;ocal fulltimer can as a rule carry the district committee without to much coercion. If nothing else the moral force of having the backing of the centre guarantees even the most inept fulltimer considerable weight.

All of which rather negates the point of the having a district committee if all that is debated is how to carry out the latest decisions of the centre. Surely every unit of the party and all fulltimers should be subject to the elective principle as Lenin argued in the RCP(B)? Prior to the suppression of factions and look what that led too!

As part of a district renound in SW for destroying fulltimers I have to say your 'experience' does not concur with my experience.

All of which mitigates against the development of a democratic culture inside the party. the trouble is that the leadership itself act in such a way that the rank and file of the party have very little guidance as to how to debate politics rather than the mere discussion of how to carry out the line. Which relates in my view to the loss of any consitent orientation on the workplaces and the unions in my view.

And is it not in the workplaces that we traditionally claimed was the potential fulcrum of the workers struggle for state power? Is it not vital that a revolutionary group relate not only to the workplaces but to the best traditions of workers democracy which the shop stewards at their best represented and represent? bearing in mind that sho[p stewards however passive they might be at present are directly elected by those they represent.

Good [pont, indeed a very worrying phenomena IMHO. Even though my personal intervention experience of SA/Respect, UAF, AC, etc was more rewarding than my intervention experience with TUists who were far more politcally wedded.

As for the motivation of the SWP CC I'm not qualified to judge. It is in any case secondary to their politics. But I have no doubt at all that comrades such as Harman and Bambery are sincere revolutionists. But as regards German and Rees whatever their motivations might be, which I do question in recent years, they have been disastrous as leaders of the SWP if one accepts that they are the main inspirers of the current turn to populism.

precisely. I hate these conspiracy theories. Their politics is primary, and their politics is the same as mine. IF, and it is a very big if, if they try to subvert the democratic process to maintain the control, they do so to achieve socialism. and so even in those extreme circumstances, which I do not believe to be the case, they would be winnable to methods that would be more practical in achieving that aim, just as I argued with the organiser.

it is ironic that the German and Reese have probably been involvedin making the Structures of the SWP more democratic now, than they have ever been in my membership.

I agree thought that Molyneux does not offer an explanation as to the current position the SWP finds itself in and he would seem to fear offering any kind of alternative. On the other hand I'm foolish enough to think that i do have some understanding as to how this lamentable situation arose and its roots. Elaboration of such an explanation is not best suited to these boards however.

Why?

fraternal greetings, resistantMP3

 

[TremulousTetra]

I did not say (or imply) "lecturing" people about anything. I said that socialists should debate with others, but a debate involves an exchange of (differing) views, not shutting up and manifesting your commitment through 'activity' alone (ie. activity in support of fronts, the precondition for involvement with which ususually seems to be a willingness not to advance socialist arguments). You (and the SWP) seem incapable of envisaging anything other than a) lecturing others and b) capitulating to the lowest common denominator - which is why as an organisation that SWP has 'swapped' between ultra-left sectarianism and populist opportunism.



You couldn't be more blatant - a tailist strategy. The failings of capitalism alone won't convince anyone of the viability of socialism, especially in the wake of Stalinism. A revolutionary party has to take an active role in promoting socialist ideas. This doesn't mean refusing to work with anyone who doesn't share your vision in full. But it does mean that you patiently explain the need to break with capitalism, even as you struggle for more limited objectives.

and I didn't say you don't have a debate. I'm just saying you try to be subtle about the debate. The majority of time in the public the debate in particular you concentrate, mainly, on where you agree. As you say, you conform to the highest common denominator. but the podium is not the only place for debate. in working together you can have debate in a far more natural and dialectical manner as you work. Plus you are continually using your publications to put the revolutionary argument as to whyyou cannot abolish poverty without abolishing capitalism. in that way you make it clear you do not agree with them, although your still prepared to work with them on what can be achieved in here and now.

I never did say that capitalism would convince people of the need to socialism, I said it would convince people of the need for revolutionary change. in those circumstances it is then incumbent upon revolutionary socialist to convince those people that the revolutionary change should be towards socialism, rather than the fascist convincing them that that revolutionary change should be towards barbarism. Between now and then revolutionary socialists have to LISTENto those they are working with, to see who has already been convinced of the need of a revolutionary change, and recruit them to revolutionary socialism through debate/discussion/convincing.


fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3.

 

[moti]

...yeah but no but...

yeah well i was actually there - it's not what someone did or didn't say on indymedia and my direct experience was when asked our autonomist critics would do nothing (except of course sort out their own events)...I'm not saying all the people who did stuff where SWP, that's the usual putting words in mouth thing that people on urban 75 do to justify their hositility to the SWP, it was about 60/40 SWP/not in the cultural stuff...

...and when I said people had mental health problems, I mean, it's not a slur, nor about whether they were part of the dissent...it's a statement of fact!

 

[Pilgrim]

yeah well i was actually there - it's not what someone did or didn't say on indymedia and my direct experience was when asked our autonomist critics would do nothing (except of course sort out their own events)...I'm not saying all the people who did stuff where SWP, that's the usual putting words in mouth thing that people on urban 75 do to justify their hositility to the SWP, it was about 60/40 SWP/not in the cultural stuff...

...and when I said people had mental health problems, I mean, it's not a slur, nor about whether they were part of the dissent...it's a statement of fact!

And did it ever occur to you to ask yourself WHY people would rather organise their own events than attend one run by and for the SWP/Livingston?

And, regarding those you allege had mental health problems, are you a psychologist or psychiatrist? Do you have recognosed qualifications in the mental health field? Because, if you haven't, I suggest you keep your attempts at 'diagnosis' to yourself.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There's nothing quite so pathetic as reading one sectarian quoting another sects attack on another sect!

If that's the game we're playing lets see what the CPGB have to say about the SP's great system of party democracy:

I've found something more pathetic than that: a cretin who doesn't read the posts he is attacking properly before spewing shit like the above. I didn't quote the CPGB's article on the SWP because by and large I think the CPGBs analyses of pretty much anything are about as trustworthy as "Party Notes". I linked to the CPGB's site because at those links they reproduced the two SWP documents in full. The CPGB are fantasists which I suppose still leaves them a rung or two above people like yourself on the political ladder.

Yes they did, and I've read that the SWP in (Northern) Ireland courted him as well.
From Socialist Democracy, Irish Section of the Fourth International, August 2001
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/N...heSocialist.htm

Speaking of political fantasists, here's something from Socialist Democracy - one of the few organisations in the world which the CPGB can honestly claim to be a multiple the size of. And predictably they're moaning about everyone else, on this occasion implying that everybody (and I mean everybody) but them is soft on the PUP. Including fucking Sinn Fein!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence.

All of which is perfectly obvious thanks. I don't see anyone here arguing for "hectoring people for their supposed stupidity" and that certainly isn't the approach which the Socialist Party takes. What we do insist on doing however is actually arguing for socialist ideas, unlike the SWP who seem to think that "fraternal debate" means socialists shutting up while everyone else, liberal, pacifist, reformist, Muslim, Christian, charity, whatever, openly argues for their own ideas. It's like a one way code of omerta!

A united front is a coming together of forces within the labour movement to achieve particular goals. A key component of the united front however is open and vigorous debate and criticism. Which the SWPers here would know if they hadn't had their conception of a united front spoonfed to them in bowdlerised form by Callinicos and Co.

 

[moti]

to be a pilgrim...

Pilgrim...

if you read my post you'll see that the autonomists pretty much fucked it up all by themselves in terms of being part of organising the event...I seem to remember Dean from the Wombles leaving in a hissy fit when the GLA had dared pre-book the only venue big enough left in London to hold the event, Ally Pally because it wasn't a 'democratic' decision if you want to play politics and that playground level (and it's quite clear from a number of posters here that that is the case ) then what do you expect?

Also no one, and I repeat no one was stopped from putting their events into the timetable which was categorically not run by the SWP or GLA but the European ESF process...

and please spare the moralism, I've had mates who have had schizophrenia and depression and whatever else, I know when someones not well - if you think someone advocating that aliens are coming to save us is the remark of someone in full charge of his/her faculties then so be it, (that's just one example) but I call a spade a spade it's no slur on the person, just a statment of fact

 

[neprimerimye]

As part of a district renound in SW for destroying fulltimers I have to say your 'experience' does not concur with my experience.

Good [pont, indeed a very worrying phenomena IMHO. Even though my personal intervention experience of SA/Respect, UAF, AC, etc was more rewarding than my intervention experience with TUists who were far more politcally wedded.

precisely. I hate these conspiracy theories. Their politics is primary, and their politics is the same as mine. IF, and it is a very big if, if they try to subvert the democratic process to maintain the control, they do so to achieve socialism. and so even in those extreme circumstances, which I do not believe to be the case, they would be winnable to methods that would be more practical in achieving that aim, just as I argued with the organiser.

it is ironic that the German and Reese have probably been involvedin making the Structures of the SWP more democratic now, than they have ever been in my membership.

Why?

fraternal greetings, resistantMP3

Sure some districts have long established comrades involved in them who are capable and willing to express their views. Others do not. Some fulltimers are capable personally attractive individuals possessed of a deep commitment to the struggle for socialism. Others are bullshit merchants. Its uneven. All however are appointed none are elected.

As far as my own experience goes the fulltimer I worked with was a good decent semi-retired bloke doing his best. Trouble was his best meant relying on clique loyalties and gossip mongers. As for the current fulltimer in that area he is very much out of his depth and has almost nothbody to work with.

Yes it is far more rewarding in the short term to do political work aimed at a milieu defined by a pre-existing common political commitment. Such campaigning work is more exciting too and more likely to yield recruits in the short term. (Which raises the question why the SWP has failed to recruit from the anti-war movement) But work directed towards the workplaces, not just established trade unionists who may well be 'conservative I agree, is fundamental. Yet in the union where the SWP has its largest concentration of members, the PCS, leading cadre were left to do their own thing with the result that Martin John essentially sold out the pension rights of future entramts to the civil service. And all Bambery could do was roast the head of the TUC whom no one gives a toss about.

I'm not sure that German and Rees do share your politics. At least not if your politics are revolutionary IS type politics which I take them to be. Frankly I think they have gone native in Respect. In any event can they be persuaded that the party needs to be more democratic not less? I very much doubt it. I suspect that for Rees/German a party that functions on the basis of workers democracy and the freest possible debate is anathema. After twenty years of leading a party that lacks a regular discussion bulletin and effectively bans factions they are not likely to change.

In what way are the structures of the SWP more democratic now? Are district committees sovereign in their districts or are they subject to appointed fulltimers? Are the fractions run by elected committees? That is where they exist I should add. Are factions allowed? Is it possible to hold discussions on party perspectives or even district or branch perspectives in regular or special meetings? Does conference take resolutions from the branchs or fractions? I should add that other than the election of fulltimers all of these questions could have been answered in the affirmative in the early 1970's. But today all are answered, if we are honest, in the negative and have been for a long time.

In my view these boards aren't suitable to elaborate an understanding of why the SWP has degenerated as that task requires a worked out analysis of the SWP's history and theory. Theres not really room for that here on boards that are dominated by liberals and other wankers. No offence intended to wankers of course.

Must dash my fave TV prog is on.

 

[Groucho]

That this perspective is both short sighted and over optimistic is in my opinion proven by the failure of the CC and John Molyneux for that matter, to even mention the debacle in the PCS late last year. Failures such as this are passed over in silence, wehn they are of fundamental importance to a party yhat claims to stand for the self emancipation of the workers, ....

Socialist Worker - the public voice of the party - issued a very clear statement on the two comrade's big mistake on the PCS NEC. The statement reflected a large majority view of the PCS SWP members and the view of the CC (btw PCS is not the union where the SWP are strongest, though we have recruited a fair few PCS members lately).

The CC contribution to the pre-conference discussion on industrial work also makes clear reference.

The issue was also debated at a delegate meeting (Party Council) towards the end of last year (prior to the cc statement which reflected the view of the council)

 

[Groucho]

Are district committees sovereign in their districts or are they subject to appointed fulltimers?

District Committees are sovereign in their districts. District organisers are appointed by the cc.

Are the fractions run by elected committees?

Yes.

Are factions allowed?

Yes, in the run up to conference over particular issues of dispute but not permanent opposition groups.

Is it possible to hold discussions on party perspectives or even district or branch perspectives in regular or special meetings?

Yes, not only possible but encouraged.

Does conference take resolutions from the branchs or fractions?

Not in the form of motions, but either individual comrades or groups of comrades can put forward proposals or amend proposals.

I should add that other than the election of fulltimers all of these questions could have been answered in the affirmative in the early 1970's.

So no change there then.

In addition to annual conference the party will hold four party councils a year comprised of 50 delegates elected at conference and two delegates from each branch. Conference and the four delegate councils can overrule the cc. That's a bit more democratic than any othert party I know. When you add the principle - scorned by so many - that representatives of the party are bound by democratic decisions I think we leave all other organisations of any relevence standing.

 

[audiotech]

At least not if your politics are revolutionary IS type politics....

'IS type politics'? That's nearly thirty years ago and the SWP political analysis then was, if anything, over optimistic and failed to recognise the impending class downturn early enough. Although, to be fair this was corrected later. The SWP also took the threat of fascisim seriously and contributed significantly to the demise of the NF. The world has changed since that time. Although the crucial question of reform or revolution hasn't.

 

[neprimerimye]

District Committees are sovereign in their districts. District organisers are appointed by the cc.

Yes.

Yes, in the run up to conference over particular issues of dispute but not permanent opposition groups.

Yes, not only possible but encouraged.

Not in the form of motions, but either individual comrades or groups of comrades can put forward proposals or amend proposals.

So no change there then.

In addition to annual conference the party will hold four party councils a year comprised of 50 delegates elected at conference and two delegates from each branch. Conference and the four delegate councils can overrule the cc. That's a bit more democratic than any othert party I know. When you add the principle - scorned by so many - that representatives of the party are bound by democratic decisions I think we leave all other organisations of any relevence standing.

District committees under the constitution of the SWP are subject to appointed fulltimers so the truthful answer is no.

If fractions are led by elected committees then i do feel that you ought to inform the membership of the SWP og this. Most SWP members seem unaware that you actually have such bodies.

So internal democracy is limited to a three month period that currently includes the xmas and new year break. Are the membership not to be trusted for the other nine months of the year? As for your presumption that if factions were allowed to exist throughout the year that they must automatically become permanant oppositions this is nonsense. Surely a properly constituted faction would by definition be loyal to the partys program differing only on secondary questions? This was the nature of the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP I note.

If, as you claim, meetings are encouraged within the SWP to discuss differences of opinion then it seems very strange that in recent years Party Notes, the Internal Bulletin and individual SWP members have complained of the partys branches not even holding regular meetings of any sort.I most certainly never heard of such meeting during my own membership in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Except for meetings convened by the Control Commission to expel people that is.

So actually comrades cannot put forward resolutions. In essence you can either reject or support the documents of the CC but cannot put forward a alternative.

So a great many changes there from the early 1970's.

Havng attended meetings of the type you describe i believe that they were and are little more than rallies of the faithful. Too large to effectively supervise the fulltime leadership or to conduct in depth political discussions.

 

[neprimerimye]

Socialist Worker - the public voice of the party - issued a very clear statement on the two comrade's big mistake on the PCS NEC. The statement reflected a large majority view of the PCS SWP members and the view of the CC (btw PCS is not the union where the SWP are strongest, though we have recruited a fair few PCS members lately).

The CC contribution to the pre-conference discussion on industrial work also makes clear reference.

The issue was also debated at a delegate meeting (Party Council) towards the end of last year (prior to the cc statement which reflected the view of the council)

Although it would seem that its circulation is at an all time low I assure you that I do know that SW is the public vice of the SWP.

One problem with the CC statement is that it was issued after your comrades had twice voted against the SWP's publically stated and absolutely correct position. Surely it would have been not only sensible but the duty of the Industrial Organiser and the leadership as a whole to have taken action following the first vote? Surely the leadership should also be held partially responsible, given their negligence, for the second vote? Surely the inaction of the SWP fraction in the PCS illustrates that the leadership of that body too is partially responsible for the fiasco?

Frankly I find your claim that the SWP is recruiting within the PCS laughable given the recent fiasco.

 

[neprimerimye]

'IS type politics'? That's nearly thirty years ago and the SWP political analysis then was, if anything, over optimistic and failed to recognise the impending class downturn early enough. Although, to be fair this was corrected later. The SWP also took the threat of fascisim seriously and contributed significantly to the demise of the NF. The world has changed since that time. Although the crucial question of reform or revolution hasn't.

The IS was nearly 30 years ago that is true but the SWP still calims to belong to the IS Tradition. Presumably this is meant to suggest that there is something distinct about that tradition that sets it apart from other Trotskyist tendencies. That would seem to be John Molyneuxs view in his document would it not? It is also the expressed view of many leading SWPers from time to time and of the fraternal groups in the IST.

Yet all you can do is reduce what I called IS type politics to over optimism. That says a great deal about your lack of understanding of the expressed politics of the SWP comrade.

But I do agree that the world has changed. I also agree that the crucial question of reform or revolution remains vital. Now on which side of that divide should one place Respect I wonder?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Not in the form of motions, but either individual comrades or groups of comrades can put forward proposals or amend proposals.

So actually comrades cannot put forward resolutions. In essence you can either reject or support the documents of the CC but cannot put forward a alternative.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you two saying that branches and fractions can't put motions to the SWP conference? And that individual members can't either? What kind of motions and documents do they have then?