Really shocking account of the American SWP from an ex-member

[RHIZOMES]

Really shocking. I knew the US SWP were a cult but not THAT bad of a cult.


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ckrlove2006
Sent: Thursday, 6 August 2009 9:06 a.m.
To: [email protected]
Subject: [swp_usa] Former Member of the SWP/YS- No Young Person should go NEAR the SWP

Hi everyone,

I have been lurking on this site for a little bit now. I usually like reading the debates and discussions. I don't actually plan on posting on a regular but I felt like a free loader if I didn't at least offer some up to date inside knowledge on the organization that this group at times focuses on.
This coming September will mark one year since I left the SWP/YS. Luckily enough I am a 23 old youth who still has many years ahead of them to continue to grow and learn and hopefully make a mark in society. When I last left I was the organizer of the San Francisco branch after one year of being in the party. I had been in the YS for going on three years by that time. I was an over achiever and really had a passion for political work. I often spoke at forums and ran for political seats on the swp platform. I was very devoted to trying to make a change in society seeing as how I came from a working poor family in the inner city. In seeing other groups I saw the swp/ys as one of the few socialist groups that seemed an appropriate way in engaging in political work.
In my earlier time in the YS, the swp seemed like logical and devoted people. It wasn't until I actually joined the party (and was able to see more internal happenings) that I began to question if this organization was for me- or any youth for that matter.
I just wanted to share the conclusions I made about the swp/ys from my experience with them.

1. They are very sectarian (and bears still crap in the woods I know). There was always lip service being given to not being sectarian but as we all know- actions speak louder than words. The coalition work we engaged in for the May Day demos and other demonstrations (anti-war, Cuban 5, etc) was not true coalition work. We usually went in there with an eye to push forth what WE were doing and most importantly try to gain a connection with someone at the meetings who did not seem attached to another group and try to recruit them. We were often advised not to take on any real organizing duties in the coalitions.
Another example would be the marches we often attended (after having taken no part in building or organizing them) setting up our table and rarely giving a donation to the organizers. Or more so negatively critiquing the march to the many that came up to our table AT THE MARCH.
If we weren't working with someone to recruit them, get them to help with our book meetings or sales, or get donations from them- we weren't working with them.
I started to feel like I was in a red bubble unable to make connections to other individuals or groups. Most of the time I was simply working with the 11 dozen members (yup- only 11 dozen, the 50 or so supporters, and the 15-18 YS members).

2. They are very MUCH a top down organization. Barnes likes to give lip service to there being no ladder to climb or no rankings but it's just lip service. Rank and file members carry out the campaigns, raise the money, and do the running. YET, when something goes wrong, there is a letter being sent out from the Political Committee to all the branches explaining how the branch members fucked up and how we need to stop this that or the other. Never mind the fact that the branches seem to ALWAYS take their lead from the Political Committee and only does what the Political committee has laid out. No...it's always the rank and file, the branches. Another example- I don't think Jack Barnes or Mary Alice have done any industry work in their lives. Also, they are treated like royalty in the party for reasons that I am still baffled over.
Why is it that when most members travel to different cities, (often missing work to do so), they are placed on someone's small couch, guest room, or floor even. YET- when Mary Alice comes into town the branches are supposed to shell out money in order for her to stay in a fancy hotel?? Why isn't someone's guest room good enough for her? Why does Jack Barnes have a full time secretary that is also his wife? Why isn't that switched out every so often so that the wife, who is also a party member goes out and works in a factory like the rest of us. Better yet- Why has Jack Barnes been the unchallenged head of this organization for over 30 years? To me, that is a problem right there.

3. It is a dead zone for youth. The majority of the 131 or so members they have in the party are over the age of 50. This wouldn't be a negative so much if they weren't so detached from the rest of society. They see nothing wrong with having you work a 40 hour or more job every day, then go to meetings in the hall until 10 at night and THEN do it all over again day in and day out. Then when you ask for a day or two off, or you want to use your sick days at your job for yourself and not for a political assignment all the time, or you don't want to spend time in the hall all day Saturday and then half the day Sunday- they think you're slacking. No....I'm trying to have a FULL LIFE. They didn't start cutting me slack until I had to be rushed to the hospital for EXHAUSTION. I can't begin to go into detail on how many young people came through our organization, lasted some months, and then left for various reasons all relating to the organizations unwillingness to create an environment that is young people friend Example: Young woman (let's call her E), both swp and ys, writes a letter to the Political Committee after a national YS meeting saying that she did not agree with the way the voting was carried out for the new YS organizing committee. Basically at the meeting, the then hand picked (by Barnes) ys organizer and organizing committee explained to the YS body, that they had met with the PC, and came up with who should be on the new YS organizing committee. Basically the new YS org comm was all the same members except one-lol. Of course the majority of the YS body voted to agree (I mean, there was some intimidation due to the fact that the PC was behind it AND Mary Alice sits in on YS national meetings). There were some that did not agree with the fact that YS members weren't really given a chance to nominate others and that the new committee already seemed in place before the meeting. Well, E, up to that point being an out spoken young woman in the ys and party, wrote a letter to the PC asking for clarification
4. They're majority white men for a reason. This may be controversial, but I have seen that if you're black, Latino, or other, you will always be playing second fiddle. Don't be fooled by the many faces of color that they have run for political seats. That is no indication of actual pull or say so in that organization. The majority in this organization are white men because they, although they like to believe, are not beyond the influence of capitalist society. They say things like racism and prejudice have no room to flourish in this organization. This is not true. There have been cases that I have witness that looking back on it were not appropriate.
One that comes to mind is when a group of young people from Minnesota came to Oberlin one year. They were majority African- American. One night during the mixer/party some of them, and two party members who happen to be African American, decided to go outside and do an impromptu beat boxing rapping contest. Mainly they went outside b/c it was too loud inside the party. Later charges were brought against the two party members saying they had engaged in a "exclusive social activity." Also the majority of the group of Minnesota youth were seen as trying to push forth the "Hip-Hop as a political vessel" agenda and only trying to recruit our youth away from the SWP-they were thus banned from coming to the forums and the Minnesota branch was encouraged to cut ties with them.... You can't make this stuff up folks-lol.

5. They like to do a lot of internal cleaning of house. There were so many trials, suspensions, and expulsions. Many reasons for these trials were, in the bigger picture of carrying out political work, so...unimportant. Also, the way people on trial were treated sometimes was down right silly. I remember one incident where a member got suspended and there needed to be some sort of meeting with his wife, who was also a party member, on how she was allowed to interact with him. I kid you NOT. Another incident was where comrades were brought up on charges for exclusive social activities. Basically these activities were just them (2-4 people) going out to a bar after the hall closed up shop, and not making some public announcement to everyone else in the hall on where they were going and inviting everyone to tag along. Heaven forbid you made some personal friends and after a long day just wanted to hang out with them. No- that was exclusive socializing.
I know of this one first hand b/c I was one of the people brought up on charges for it. They also started citing other times I had gone out for a drink without inviting everyone. What turned into what should have been perhaps a week's suspension (if they were really going to go as far as to suspend someone over that bull) turned into the PC suggesting to my branch that I be expelled. Others involved in my situation had already resigned from the party before it got to that point. Instead of sitting around for them to make a further decision (they deemed this so important that instead of having my branch vote they wanted the National Committee to do the voting)I decided to leave. The stress wasn't worth it for me. I honestly felt that they probably weren't going to expel me- but simply use this stressful situation to somehow simmer me down. Here I was, 22 at the time, already voted by my peers as organizer of a branch, running for office, and the like. I also spoke my mind when I didn't agree. I mean, it was m This group strives for homogeneity and the membership that is left, so hell bent on not being thrown out into the cold since they've given most of their lives to this group, will go along with it. People who I had worked closely with (Joel B, Betsey, and others) who I put much confidence in politically all turned out to be foot soldiers and yes men. That is not grounds for a so called revolutionary organization. I left that organization with a sour taste in my mouth- as did others. Groups such as these suck the life out of youth and only use them to keep their machine going. It is truly a shame. Also, don't get me started on how much they hit the rank and file (all of us at minimum wage jobs) up for cash all the time. It was very hard being able to save any money in this organization.

If anyone has any other questions I wouldn't mind answering.

[Revy]

This is well known.

The SWP has already degenerated into a "capitalist" structure of its own. Ever since Barnes took over it's been going downhill. He rules the party with an iron fist and they (him, his wife and the higher up members) live the high life.

If the people that founded the SWP saw it, they'd probably have a heart attack.

[RHIZOMES]

This is well known.

The SWP has already degenerated into a "capitalist" structure of its own. Ever since Barnes took over it's been going downhill. He rules the party with an iron fist and they (him, his wife and the higher up members) live the high life.

If the people that founded the SWP saw it, they'd probably have a heart attack.

I knew all that, but being expelled for "exclusive social activities" WTF?!

[ev]

What a shame, people need alternatives to the SWP. Other leftist organizations should publicly condemn them as anti-socialist..

[Lolshevik]

I knew the SWP had some authoritarian practices but... wow.

For once in my life I'm glad that the founders of our movement aren't alive to see this. It would only shame them.

[9]

Disgusting, if not particularly surprising...

[Q]

Fucked up. It always amazes me how these type of lifesucking sects can recruit at all.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Exclusive social activities"?

ffs.

[Lyev]

I can take away the lesson that people can be wankers irrelevant of their political views.

[RHIZOMES]

I can take away the lesson that people can be wankers irrelevant of their political views.

In SWP's case, very inconsistent views which they obviously do not apply to their own organizational structure.

[Yehuda Stern]

I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the SWP. As much as I despise this right-centrist organization, I'm not really sure that this letter is genuine. This puts in question articles 3,4 and 5 - article 2 is well known, and I will deal with 1 below. I don't have anything concrete to prove that the letter isn't genuine; but there's no proof that it is, and I must say the tone seems questionable to me (what 23 year old refers to himself as a "youth"?). It seems way too manufactured.

As for point 1:


The coalition work we engaged in for the May Day demos and other demonstrations (anti-war, Cuban 5, etc) was not true coalition work. We usually went in there with an eye to push forth what WE were doing and most importantly try to gain a connection with someone at the meetings who did not seem attached to another group and try to recruit them.

How terrible! They were trying to recruit people who did not seem attached to another group!


Another example would be the marches we often attended (after having taken no part in building or organizing them) setting up our table and rarely giving a donation to the organizers. Or more so negatively critiquing the march to the many that came up to our table AT THE MARCH.

Well, this is beyond belief. Criticizing events organized by other organizations? At the events themselves?

Give me a break. I have no love for the SWP, but it seems like members here are just dying for the latest piece of sect gossip.

[Small Geezer]

Damn you, Yehuda. You had to ruin it for us.

[Q]

How exactly are articles 3, 4 and 5 in question Yehuda?

[scarletghoul]

I don't really get why you seem to think its a fake article, Yehuda Stern. Only from a warped trot mindset would it be concievable that someone would bother to make all that up and pose as an ex-member just to bring shame to the party.

23 year olds are young, especially in a party full of over 50s.

The two points you attempted to defend are just examples of stupid Trotskyist sectarianism and opportunism that doesn't do anything to help the socialist movement

[Module]

How terrible! They were trying to recruit people who did not seem attached to another group!Empty recruiting I actually see as a genuine problem. I have quite a few friends who have been 'signed up' to some socialist group and started receiving a bunch of text messages after these people simply 'briefed' them on what capitalism was. It seems like simply trying to boost numbers. They don't care if you actually know what you're talking about, or care about it. I have a friend in particular who was constantly asked to do things like hand out flyers/paint and hold up banners at protests but was never involved in anything past that. They're actually like leeches. That's what that sounds like to me with the SWP.

Well, this is beyond belief. Criticizing events organized by other organizations? At the events themselves?What do you see as so unbelievable about bringing this up? The point, obviously, is unnecessary undermining of other socialist groups and their actions, especially while actually participating in them yourself; seems ridiculous.
And, I'd call myself a youth, depending on the context.

[RHIZOMES]

I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the SWP. As much as I despise this right-centrist organization, I'm not really sure that this letter is genuine. This puts in question articles 3,4 and 5 - article 2 is well known, and I will deal with 1 below. I don't have anything concrete to prove that the letter isn't genuine; but there's no proof that it is,

So so many flaws in your argument... it was posted on a Yahoogroup devoted to discussing the history of the SWP and what went wrong with it, including former members who discuss their experiences and analyse its failure. I didn't find it because the guy had posted it all over the internet to defame the party, the author in question is simply a poster who wanted to share his experiences. I only found it because the national organizer for the Workers Party was on that e-mail list and sent it to WP internal list. He used to be in the Pathfinder affiliate Socialist Action League in New Zealand in the 70's and 80's and now loathes all psuedo-Trotskyist cult groups such the SWP, WSWS, etc.

Also the really bizarre parts of this letter which you take issue with, such as "exclusive social activities", corroborates quite well with some first-hand evidence of my own. Some former SAL/CLers in the Workers Party responded to this article by mentioning their own experience with Pathfinder organizations sticking their nose way too much in people's social lives if even more than 0.1% of their social activities didn't complete revolve around the party. One member said how when she first met the person she later married, they called a special "Young Socialist" meeting which was her (20 at the time) and another guy who was around 40, saying about how it was a "political error" to "get involved" with him because he was at the time a member of the old explicitly Maoist Workers Party. Mind you this was before they had even started GOING OUT, so it was not only intrusive and ultra-sectarian (I'm friends with heaps of NZ anarchists), it was also really fucking creepy.


and I must say the tone seems questionable to me (what 23 year old refers to himself as a "youth"?). It seems way too manufactured.

I think scarletghoul summed it up quite well:


I don't really get why you seem to think its a fake article, Yehuda Stern. Only from a warped trot mindset would it be concievable that someone would bother to make all that up and pose as an ex-member just to bring shame to the party.

23 year olds are young, especially in a party full of over 50s.

To expand on that, I think if my life had been completely immersed for the past 3 years in a psuedo-leftist cult composed mostly of codgy old white people, I would think of myself mostly in the context of a "youth" too. In fact I think of myself of a "youth" in my own organization, as while Wellington is mostly 20 and early 30-somethings, Christchurch being a good mix between young and old, the Auckland branch is mostly between the early 30's and late 40s, and I'm 18. :lol:


As for point 1:



How terrible! They were trying to recruit people who did not seem attached to another group!



Well, this is beyond belief. Criticizing events organized by other organizations? At the events themselves?

Give me a break. I have no love for the SWP, but it seems like members here are just dying for the latest piece of sect gossip.

I had a similiar initial reaction when I started reading, because I know Workers Party makes an effort to recruit people (Party building?! Heavens no!), and sometimes advises not to get in so-and-so coalition because we disagree with its politics or methods (Like if it is liberal rather than revolutionary). But then I read further and these questions started to pop up in my head... like free the Cuban 5 and anti-war coalitions? Whats wrong with that? The SWP always fucking go on about the Cuban 5! And why the fuck would you GO TO THE MARCH and undermine a successful leftist organized event? Going to a leftist organized march to undermine it, is completely malicious and sectarian whether you agree with the message behind the event or not. And aren't there better things in your life to do? You know what I do when some of my activist friends such as anarchists or socialists with some liberal positions are organizing some protest I ideologically disagree with? I don't go and let them do their own thing, just as I would expect them to do the same for our events. It's even more despicable if it wasn't for ideological reasons, like say you disagreed with the organization of it or some of the finer political points in their propaganda (A few sentences which suggest liberalism rather than radicalism), because then the question is why would you undermine an event promoting a generally progressive cause? The only reasons I can think of is because they don't like the fact that it isn't their organization that is 110% behind the protests, and that *gasp* there are other groups which can more effectively mobilize and organize for such events than them. Oh and also to make more $$$ from Militant and Pathfinder book sales, of course. :rolleyes:

[Josef Balin]

I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the SWP. As much as I despise this right-centrist organization, I'm not really sure that this letter is genuine. This puts in question articles 3,4 and 5 - article 2 is well known, and I will deal with 1 below. I don't have anything concrete to prove that the letter isn't genuine; but there's no proof that it is, and I must say the tone seems questionable to me (what 23 year old refers to himself as a "youth"?). It seems way too manufactured.

It may not be popular in Israel, but it is certainly popular in America. I've definitely heard a lot of 25 and unders refer to themselves as "youth", moreso than I've heard them call themselves anything else.

[Led Zeppelin]

This type of stuff is really widespread. I wouldn't be surprised if over 99% of so-called "revolutionary organizations" (i.e., sects) suffered from it to some degree.

[Janine Melnitz]

While Yehuda Stern's defense of sectarian tactics is a little disappointing, and while like most here I found myself thinking "Well that wouldn't surprise me" as I read the OP, YS is definitely right about this being testimony from not even a defector, but someone who cyber-e-claims to have even been a member of SWP. So maybe a little premature to start jumping all over the genuinely disgusting stories about "exclusive social activity" etc.

[Yehuda Stern]

How exactly are articles 3, 4 and 5 in question Yehuda?

They're in question because I don't believe the letter is genuine and therefore see no reason to believe any of its content that hasn't been confirmed elsewhere. The bottom line is, there's no proof that any of those things actually happened; this is one of the reasons why criticism of organizations should be political rather than based on sectarian gossip, true or false.


Empty recruiting I actually see as a genuine problem.

Me too, but nothing in the letter indicates that the recruitment was of this nature (though I wouldn't be surprised if that were true regarding the American SWP).


What do you see as so unbelievable about bringing this up? The point, obviously, is unnecessary undermining of other socialist groups and their actions, especially while actually participating in them yourself; seems ridiculous.

Who said the criticism was unnecessary? He was referring to any sort of criticism. I think it is the duty of revolutionaries to participate in events organized by other groups while criticizing them. What is sectarian about this? If a trade union organizes a strike in a bureaucratic way, is it not the duty of revolutionaries to criticize this and offer an alternative to the workers? Would doing otherwise not be neglecting one's duty towards the workers?


it was posted on a Yahoogroup devoted to discussing the history of the SWP and what went wrong with it, including former members who discuss their experiences and analyse its failure. I didn't find it because the guy had posted it all over the internet to defame the party, the author in question is simply a poster who wanted to share his experiences.

OK, that may very well be. It may be that the letter is genuine - I said I doubt it, not that it's impossible. All these dreadful stories about the SWP may be true. The problem is, no one here has any hard evidence, only personal experience, which no one has to believe on an internet forum. Isn't it better to criticize a group politically, by referring to its actual positions and actions, which are far more objective than all this gossip?


And why the fuck would you GO TO THE MARCH and undermine a successful leftist organized event? Going to a leftist organized march to undermine it, is completely malicious and sectarian whether you agree with the message behind the event or not. And aren't there better things in your life to do?

If you call criticism "undermining," fine. I think that it is important for revolutionaries to come to events and put their political criticism in the open. Honest revolutionaries should welcome such challenges from other left group. Only opportunists and other people who want to take advantage of the possible ignorance of their crowd should have a problem with political criticism. Nowhere in the letter has it been suggested that the criticism is malicious or venomous; the letter condemns the SWP for making any criticism at all in such events.

As for my issue with the word "youth" - I realize it wasn't a very good example. It was just my attempt to show that I find something suspect about the tone of the article. However, that's obviously not evidence for anything, so disregard that comment.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I have a few criticisms of the SWP from my own experiences:

1) The party is so homogeneous it's like a clone army. If you ever go to an SWP meeting, don't bother asking anyone what they do for a living: they are ALL meatpackers. They talk about the importance of reaching out to students and the working class in general, but 90% of the party work in slaughterhouses and meatpacking. Meetings are a bunch of gray-haired meatpackers, a couple of slightly younger meatpackers, a few curious college students, and the occasional Mexican or Guatemalan meatpacker in the corner with an interpreter. Also, they are almost all white people.

2) They are historically irrelevant and hypocritical. They claim that Stalin was a completely anti-Marxist fraud and yet orient themselves around the "Stalinist" Cuban revolution. They don't call themselves Trotskyist anymore, but this is their historical legacy and they are still irrelevant, more-revolutionary-than-thou sectarians because of it. It's like a 70 year old party and they have never been able to significantly grow or harness any revolutionary potential.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If you ever go to an SWP meeting, don't bother asking anyone what they do for a living: they are ALL meatpackers. They talk about the importance of reaching out to students and the working class in general, but 90% of the party work in slaughterhouses and meatpacking. Meetings are a bunch of gray-haired meatpackers, a couple of slightly younger meatpackers, a few curious college students, and the occasional Mexican or Guatemalan meatpacker in the corner with an interpreter.

Are you kidding? You must be kidding. How is that fact that a large bulk of their membership happen to be meatpackers a criticism?

Maybe you are just horrified at the idea that a communist party (and I use the term lightly) might just happen to contain workers amongst its membership?


Also, they are almost all white people.

What does this have to do with anything?

But yes, I think we can all agree the SWP is a joke and these facts about it's internal operations shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Janine Melnitz]

Also, they are almost all white people.
What does this have to do with anything?
Uh, a huge fucking lot actually, especially in the U.S.

[gorillafuck]

Are you kidding? You must be kidding. How is that fact that a large bulk of their membership happen to be meatpackers a criticism?
Meatpackers can't be socialists. Didn't you get the memo?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Are you kidding? You must be kidding. How is that fact that a large bulk of their membership happen to be meatpackers a criticism?

Maybe you are just horrified at the idea that a communist party (and I use the term lightly) might just happen to contain workers amongst its membership?

To me it shows that they're stuck in a niche. I'm not saying it's bad to have meatpackers in a working class party, OBVIOUSLY. (I would be working in meatpacking right now if I hadn't been disqualified for my academic ambitions.) But when the party is essentially organized as a social network of one specific branch of employment, I think that's at least a little bit concerning.


What does this have to do with anything?

Because not only is their niche meatpacking, but it's old white meatpackers. On top of that, a huge majority of meatpackers in the Midwest today are young and Latino, and these people are secondary in SWP leadership.


But yes, I think we can all agree the SWP is a joke and these facts about it's internal operations shouldn't come as a surprise.

What are you getting at? There is a lot of genuine revolutionaries in the SWP, and I don't consider them too reformist (definately not "center-right" like someone said earlier); but I don't think a 70 year old party made up of aging Trotskyists is going to be the vanguard of the revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Uh, a huge fucking lot actually, especially in the U.S.

Thanks for your contribution.


What are you getting at? There is a lot of genuine revolutionaries in the SWP, and I don't consider them too reformist (definately not "center-right" like someone said earlier); but I don't think a 70 year old party made up of aging Trotskyists is going to be the vanguard of the revolution.

What are you not getting? I don't think anything I said is confusing or particularly contensious here.

I suppose the idea that there are 'a lot of genuine revolutionaries' in the SWP depends on how you define a 'genuine revolutionary'. Sure, it's membership consists of people willing to make a militant political commitment to what they understand as the cause of communism, that doesn't change the nature of their political positions or the role organisations such as the SWP play in the class struggle.

I don't think the problem with the SWP is it's membership; I think the problem with the SWP is it's politics.

[Janine Melnitz]

Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks for being a dildo? I didn't go into detail about the disproportionately non-white composition of the proletariat, the centrality of racism in capitalist exploitation, the fact that racism is first a matter of social organization and composition (this applies to parties as much as to businesses) and only secondarily about racist ideas, etc. etc. etc., because I figured it went without fucking saying.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

What are you not getting? I don't think anything I said is confusing or particularly contensious here.

I suppose the idea that there are 'a lot of genuine revolutionaries' in the SWP depends on how you define a 'genuine revolutionary'. Sure, it's membership consists of people willing to make a militant political commitment to what they understand as the cause of communism, that doesn't change the nature of their political positions or the role organisations such as the SWP play in the class struggle.

I don't think the problem with the SWP is it's membership; I think the problem with the SWP is it's politics.

Sorry, my question was a bit confusing. I meant it as a defense of (some) of the SWP membership. I agree that the problem is with its politics, and also with the leadership.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Thanks for being a dildo? I didn't go into detail about the disproportionately non-white composition of the proletariat, the centrality of racism in capitalist exploitation, the fact that racism is first a matter of social organization and composition (this applies to parties as much as to businesses) and only secondarily about racist ideas, etc. etc. etc., because I figured it went without fucking saying.

There isn't any need to be rude about it. 'It' doesn't goes without saying at all. I still don't see why the racial and ethnic composition of an organisation has any bearing on the politics of the organisation, it's class nature and how we relate to that organisation. I think what you're saying amounts to identity politics.

[RHIZOMES]

Are you kidding? You must be kidding. How is that fact that a large bulk of their membership happen to be meatpackers a criticism?

Maybe you are just horrified at the idea that a communist party (and I use the term lightly) might just happen to contain workers amongst its membership?

There's a difference between having a support base in meatpacker factories and forcing all your members to be meatpackers

Fuck that

[Janine Melnitz]

I think what you're saying amounts to identity politics.
What I said is that racism plays a huge role in capitalist exploitation, particularly in America. If not only denying that, but haughtily dismissing it as "identity politics", is the standard in Marxism generally and Trot orgs specifically then I think I can guess why the SWP hasn't grown its membership beyond a handful of white geriatrics.

[Niccolò Rossi]

There's a difference between having a support base in meatpacker factories and forcing all your members to be meatpackers

Who in this thread has suggested that being a meatpacker is a prerequist for being member of the SWP? If you know differently, provide some evidence to back up the assertion.


What I said is that racism plays a huge role in capitalist exploitation, particularly in America. If not only denying that, but haughtily dismissing it as "identity politics", is the standard in American Marxist orgs then I think I can guess why the SWP hasn't grown its membership beyond a handful of white geriatrics.

I did not dismiss the reality of racism. I apologise if I you misunderstood.

What I dismissed was your notion that the racial or ethnic composition of an organisation has any bearing on the politics of the organisation, it's class nature and how we relate to that organisation.

[Janine Melnitz]

What I dismissed was your notion that the racial or ethnic composition of an organisation has any bearing on the politics of the organisation, it's class nature
Right, and I didn't claim it did, but I also don't think that correct "politics", even joined with being in the right class, can get you anywhere on its own. At many points in history Marxists have focused almost exclusively on industrial workers, not because they were "more proletarian" than other workers, certainly not because they were more Marxist, but because they were considered best-placed at these times to lead all other sectors of the proletariat. This is a question of strategy.

This isn't an analogy, I'm not leading into an argument that a given racial sector of the proletariat is more qualified to lead, I'm giving an example of how, for Marxists, strategy is "the politics of [an] organization", and certainly has a lot to do with "how we relate to it". An all-white party, if it can't break out of being all-white, is strategically dead in America and indeed in most industrialized nations.

[Niccolò Rossi]

An all-white party, if it can't break out of being all-white, is strategically dead in America and indeed in most industrialized nations.

This is a baseless assertion.

[Janine Melnitz]

Wow, rly? You think the non-white proletariat in America are gonna line up behind an all-white sect? lol okay

I mean, even the bourgeois parties, now that they can't use as much force to exclude people of color from electoral politics altogether, are wising up to the fact that non-whites are gonna be maybe a little leery of all-white "leadership", and are falling all over themselves to present a less-aryan face. In this case, deriding such efforts as "identity politics" fits, since of course neither party is interested in the material conditions of non-whites. Where that's not the case, where people are simply recognizing the racial realities of class struggle, using "identity politics" as a cuss word is simply idiotic.

[RHIZOMES]

Who in this thread has suggested that being a meatpacker is a prerequist for being member of the SWP? If you know differently, provide some evidence to back up the assertion.

The SWP-USA affiliated Communist League in NZ makes it a prerequisite, and they aren't exactly known for their original thinking. :lol:

[chebol]

For what it's worth, the Communist League (the US SWP's co-thinkers in Australia) are almost entirely meat packers as well.

Sure, it's the politics, not the members, but if anyone's interested in how the meatpacking membership is related to the SWP's politics, they should check out the history of the SWP's wonderful "turn to industry".

[RHIZOMES]

For what it's worth, the Communist League (the US SWP's co-thinkers in Australia) are almost entirely meat packers as well.

Sure, it's the politics, not the members, but if anyone's interested in how the meatpacking membership is related to the SWP's politics, they should check out the history of the SWP's wonderful "turn to industry".

I just don't think you should impose that, it scares off any possible new recruits. A lot of people in our organization do working class jobs like factory worker or bus driver or train conducter after University out of principle rather than being forced to.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Wow, rly? You think the non-white proletariat in America are gonna line up behind an all-white sect? lol okay

I don't think the proletariat in the US or anywhere in the world is going to line up behind any political sect, nor do they need to, so I think the question is redundant and silly.

Also, I don't see why you insist on responding in a smart arse matter.


I mean, even the bourgeois parties, now that they can't use as much force to exclude people of color from electoral politics altogether, are wising up to the fact that non-whites are gonna be maybe a little leery of all-white "leadership", and are falling all over themselves to present a less-aryan face.

So you are honestly promoting the political tactics of the bourgeoisie to serve the ends of proletarian revolution?

The idea that the black working class need a black socialist leadership with which to identify is opportunism and pandering to backward consciousness. I suppose next you will be proposing we drop demands for abortion and contraception on demand in order to identify with the christian and muslim working class?


The SWP-USA affiliated Communist League in NZ makes it a prerequisite


For what it's worth, the Communist League (the US SWP's co-thinkers in Australia) are almost entirely meat packers as well.

Well I suppose you learn something everyday. I've never encountered the Communist League in person and I wouldn't take this as true without verifying it myself (especially comming from Chebol who has in the past slandered groups like the ICL-FI, accusing them of recruiting outside mental asylums and living in a single household here wages are pooled).

[Janine Melnitz]

I don't think the proletariat in the US or anywhere in the world is going to line up behind any political sect, nor do they need to, so I think the question is redundant and silly.
OK, so what are parties for if not to lead.

So you are honestly promoting the political tactics of the bourgeoisie to serve the ends of proletarian revolution?
A little surprising -- I'd expect this line from an anarchist. Yes, I am promoting any and all tactics that are effective, that take into account the actual situation on the ground and not just abstract "principles", regardless of who happens to be using them at any moment. Fucking of course I am. Jesus, next you'll be talking about how guns are only for oppressors. [EDIT: Also, thanks, dick, for conveniently leaving out the following sentences that make clear how a materialist approach to race would be qualitatively different from the bourgeois one I described]

The idea that the black working class need a black socialist leadership with which to identify is opportunism and pandering to backward consciousness.
Skepticism on the part of non-whites toward all-white leadership is "backward consciousness"? Holy shit, you are definitely not worth arguing with.

[Revy]

I think they're all old because the party itself is aging.

The SP does have a lot of old people but we also have young people and middle aged people. So there are new generations. But I don't think the same is true with the SWP. It's like a "holdover party" from the past. You are not going to see them organizing the youth like the SP or PSL.

I am not a huge fan of sectarianism either. But the title of the original post is absolutely true. the SWP would not be a comfortable environment for young people. That's just the truth.

[cb9's_unity]

This conversation is getting a little out of hand. May I ask where this branch of the SWP is?

I know that if a socialist organization popped up in my town i'd probably be surprised to see a minority there simply because of statistics (my town can't be made up of more than 2-5% minorities at most). However if i went to a meeting 30 minutes away in Boston and didn't see one black face in the crowd I'd be pretty suspicious.

The problem is you are arguing concepts without having the facts laid down. If an organization does not have the same ethnic proportions of its community then there is a problem. Either the organization is not doing an effective job in appealing to the whole proletariat or it is blatantly racist. However the idea that ethnic diversity in itself is vital to revolution is equally absurd. Socialists should believe race in itself has very little to do with a persons revolutionary qualities. Class not race is what causes and influences revolution.

I think this argument has been more about confusion than substantial difference in opinion.

[Janine Melnitz]

However the idea that ethnic diversity in itself is vital to revolution is equally absurd.
Right, and I never put forth that it was, "in itself" -- I made specific reference to social context.

I think this argument has been more about confusion than substantial difference in opinion.
Maybe, but I don't actually think Niccolò's saying the same things you are (unless you're saying that non-whites, in America no less, who distrust all-white "leadership" are guilty of "backward consciousness").

[Niccolò Rossi]

OK, so what are parties for if not to lead.

We are not talking about parties here, we are talking about sects. These are your own words.


Yes, I am promoting any and all tactics that are effective, that take into account the actual situation on the ground and not just abstract "principles", regardless of who happens to be using them at any moment.

We are in agreement that tactics aught be employed where ever they are appropriate. However, the question that remains however is where the tactics of the bourgeoisie are compatible with those of the proletariat.


Fucking of course I am. Jesus, next you'll be talking about how guns are only for oppressors.

Not at all. The idea that a professional standing army is compatible with the task of defending revolution or that small, armed bands of guerilla fighters can be a force for bringing the working class to power is another story.


[EDIT: Also, thanks, dick, for conveniently leaving out the following sentences that make clear how a materialist approach to race would be qualitatively different from the bourgeois one I described]

What is the purpose of me including the two sentences which you call a 'materialist approach to race'? Stocking an organisations leadership with black faces (sorry if this is a caricature of what you are saying, but this about as much sense as I can make of it) is an opportunistic tactic whether or not you genuinely support the liberation of blacks from racial oppression.


Skepticism on the part of non-whites toward all-white leadership is "backward consciousness"?

Skepticism towards people of different racial and/or ethnic backgrounds is not a class perspective. Yes, it is a reality, but it shouldn't be fetishised or accodated with, it should be combatted in and through class struggle.


Holy shit, you are definitely not worth arguing with.

Is that what they call it these days? Judging from your posts one would think we were having a school yard name calling contest and hissy fit.

On a serious note, I don't have any desire to continue this dialouge which you are proving to make completely pointless. As such I will make this my last post in this inane and banal thread.

[cb9's_unity]

To be fair I re-read the arguments. A lot of the confusion is a result of the thread starting as a discussion about a local party and then turning into a discussion about American revolution as a whole.

A revolution in America that is not racially diverse would be both undesirable and impractical. Because America is so mixed racially a pure white leadership would certainly make the class look less unified and would raise questions of racism. However if that local SWP leadership was all white because of the chance make-up of the community, the mostly white nature of the group would not hurt its revolutionary potential.

It's possible I misread or misunderstood what people were saying in the thread. However I guess i have put down my opinion on the issue and if anyone disagrees with what I'm saying I'll go from there.

[Devrim]

I just don't think you should impose that, it scares off any possible new recruits. A lot of people in our organization do working class jobs like factory worker or bus driver or train conducter after University out of principle rather than being forced to.

I have worked in factories because I had to including actually in the meat industry, killing chickens. I always got out as soon as I could, and have spent the majority of my working life outside (5 years as a postman, 12 as a construction worker). I think anyone who takes a job in a factory on some sort of bizarre 'principle' is an idiot.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The problem is you are arguing concepts without having the facts laid down. If an organization does not have the same ethnic proportions of its community then there is a problem.

In our organisation we have a higher proportion of Kurds than in the general population, about a third as opposed to a fifth. For the areas where we have members it would be an even greater proportion.

Are you suggesting that we kick a few Kurds out to even up the 'ethnic proportions' a bit.?

Devrim

[Janine Melnitz]

We are not talking about parties here, we are talking about sects. These are your own words.
A sect is a (crappy) party. An all-white party in almost any part of the US is pretty certainly a sect. Jeeziz.

What is the purpose of me including the two sentences which you call a 'materialist approach to race'? Stocking an organisations leadership with black faces (sorry if this is a caricature of what you are saying,
It is of course, but I'll take your word that you really don't understand. I'm talking about engaging with, mobilizing, and as a result being representative of the proletariat as it exists and is composed in one's community, not pandering by simply using "black faces" as PR (the latter, in fact, is something the SWP is known for -- it's probably a genuine attempt to reach out, nothing I'd sneer at, but certainly isn't in itself a solution to their real problem: a failure to engage, of which their demographics are a symptom -- one which aggravates the problem). Incidentally, do you make similar criticisms ("stocking up on black faces") of programs like Affirmative Action?

Skepticism towards people of different racial and/or ethnic backgrounds is not a class perspective.
Lord, I even italicized "all-white" and bolded the "all". Do you think maybe I meant something different than prejudice against a single white dude? Or is anything but total colorblindness in all situations -- on the part of those for whom color can be (through no choice of their own) a matter of life and death -- a case of "reverse racism" to you?

Judging from your posts one would think we were having a school yard name calling contest and hissy fit.
Judging from yours one would think you don't know many black people. You got my hackles up not by being wrong, but by being wrong while exhibiting the sort of smug confidence in your own objective, "rational" standpoint -- posturing as unblemished by the "emotional" concerns that come from subjective engagement -- that is the hallmark of the privileged and out-of-touch. (Not to say this really is you -- I don't know you -- but if not you do a fucking great impression.)

[Yehuda Stern]

In our organisation we have a higher proportion of Kurds than in the general population, about a third as opposed to a fifth. For the areas where we have members it would be an even greater proportion.

Are you suggesting that we kick a few Kurds out to even up the 'ethnic proportions' a bit.?

I think there's a difference here - Kurds are an oppressed minority in Turkey, while white people are the privileged ethnic group in the USA. I think that when an organization of significant size fails to recruit a significant number of oppressed workers into its ranks, it seriously needs to check what it is doing wrong. When an organization has a high percentage of the oppressed in it, it actually means that it's doing a great job - just like the Bolsheviks with Jews in Russia.

[KC]

I think that this argument about racism has gotten a little out of hand and obscured by the positions taken on both sides of the debate and those participating making presumptions about the others' views which are not necessarily true.

I don't think that there is some kind of "diversity" standard that organizations should live up to. As Niccolò rightly pointed out, this bourgeois method of attempting to suppress racism is not only incredibly superficial and arbitrary, but also goes to promote racism (it essentially amounts to being able to say "Look at all the black people we have! See we're not racist anymore!").

However, the racial composition of an organization can be representative of a particular aspect of that organization (or, of course, the organization as a whole, but I don't think that applies in this case). The argument being put forward is not that the SWP is racist because of its racial composition (being mostly white, with all of the minorities in the rank-and-file), but rather that the racial composition of the organization is evidence in support of the assertion that the SWP (the leadership, at least) is racist in some aspect.

Now, I don't think that the racial composition of the SWP necessarily proves this claim; it is merely one piece that could go to support that assertion. What is required to prove this claim is further evidence regarding the treatment of minorities in the organization and the reasoning for the racial composition. Personally, I am not willing to simply accept the claim leveled in the first post and put forward by some people here that the SWP is racist without more evidence to support this assertion, and I suggest others not to, either. What I do think, though (and this is only a hunch), is that there is at least a hint of truth in this claim, and that if not explicitly racist, then there is some implicit racism present to an extent significant enough to cause minorities to be discouraged from either joining the organization or being active enough to rise in the ranks.

As for the meat packing issue, I don't have conclusive proof to offer this argument, but I have heard from numerous people that the SWP dictates that its members must be employed in either meat packing, coal mining, or automaking. I have also talked to numerous SWP members, who were all either coal miners or meat packers. That's not conclusive proof but that's pretty strong evidence to support the assertion, in my opinion.

[Sam_b]

A sect is a (crappy) party

No it isn't.


Judging from yours one would think you don't know many black people. You got my hackles up not by being wrong, but by being wrong while exhibiting the sort of smug confidence in your own objective, "rational" standpoint -- posturing as unblemished by the "emotional" concerns that come from subjective engagement -- that is the hallmark of the privileged and out-of-touch. (Not to say this really is you -- I don't know you -- but if not you do a fucking great impression.)

What an utterly presumptious, and to be honest, moronic, thing to say.

Your whole argument seems to argue that a party cannot relate to ethnic minorities unless it has a significant number of ethnic minorities in it. This is indeed nothing more than identity politics.

[Organic Revolution]

Sounds like a typical socialist organization to me.

[manic expression]

Yup, that's the SWP (US) for ya. I worked with them for about a year, becoming a member of the youth organization, and I have to say that although I didn't see everything the author wrote first-hand, none of this surprises me one bit.


Who in this thread has suggested that being a meatpacker is a prerequist for being member of the SWP? If you know differently, provide some evidence to back up the assertion.

When I was a member of the YS, the need for me to get a job in meatpacking, textiles or mining was made clear on many occasions. It is essentially a requirement for SWP members.

Also, the problem with having all your members coerced into being meatpackers/miners/etc is that politically, the SWP refuses to do outreach to workers employed outside of heavy industry (practically speaking, the SWP doesn't do any outreach at all, but that's a different story). This ignores the fact that a significant sector of the American working class, perhaps the majority, falls under that category. What this amounts to is economism based on statistics that have been outdated since the 70's, to say nothing of the inherent paper-thin excuse for not organizing where the workers are. The SWP didn't go out and recruit meatpackers for its branches, it took a bunch of members (many of them fresh out of college during the "new left" period) and told them to get meatpacking jobs.


I know that if a socialist organization popped up in my town i'd probably be surprised to see a minority there simply because of statistics (my town can't be made up of more than 2-5% minorities at most). However if i went to a meeting 30 minutes away in Boston and didn't see one black face in the crowd I'd be pretty suspicious.

I think the ex-member was in San Francisco, which is pretty diverse without even including the surrounding Bay Area. At any rate, my impressions were quite similar with the SWP in upstate NY, NYC and NJ, which is one of the most diverse regions in the country.

[KC]

When I was a member of the YS, the need for me to get a job in meatpacking, textiles or mining was made clear on many occasions. It is essentially a requirement for SWP members.

How did meetings typically go? How was this organization structured internally? Was there any form of democracy/accountability or was it completely top-down, as I've commonly heard?

What activity did your group do, and what activity do you know of that other sections of the organization did? Who edits Militant, and how difficult is it to contribute to that paper?

More importantly, how many active members do they have? And do they do anything of relevance ever?

[robbo203]

Can't say I know much about the American SWP but it does seem a little incongruous that it should require its members to be factory workers - a tytpically absurd workerist position - while the fat cats at the top of the organisation - Jack Barnes and Mary Alice - make such a handsome profit out of selling property. Here's a link that explains things http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/jack-barnes-property-ladder/

So much for the idea of leadership which so many on the left have bought into. It reminds of the expression - only sheep need leaders, to fleece them!

[Janine Melnitz]

What an utterly presumptious, and to be honest, moronic, thing to say.
Presumption would be claiming I knew where he came from. I was saying how his post read, in response to his own whining about my "tone" or whatever. But yeah, irrelevant in both cases.

Your whole argument seems to argue that a party cannot relate to ethnic minorities unless it has a significant number of ethnic minorities in it. This is indeed nothing more than identity politics.
OK, thanks for reiterating a meaningless cuss word and reinforcing it with "indeed" -- there wasn't enough pomposity in this thread, and I was praying Sam_b would fix that. I'm not sure it takes much hermeneutic effort to determine what my "argument seems to be arguing" -- on the other hand, the "responses" to (dismissals of) it as "identity politics" are in fact rather opaque. Given a lack of consensus on a definition, I can only go by the phrase's use -- and its only utility in this thread so far, as in many other places, seems to be allowing white leftists to "acknowledge the existence of racism" while pretending it has no practical consequences whatsoever.

[manic expression]

How did meetings typically go? How was this organization structured internally? Was there any form of democracy/accountability or was it completely top-down, as I've commonly heard?

Well, the leadership has been the same for at least a few decades, and as the article alluded to Barnes' word never goes challenged at all. I didn't take part in too many regular meetings because of my location, but I did participate in a YS national meeting, which basically just ratified what the top members said. Not really any debate or discussion, but since it was my first leftist organizational experience, I chalked it up to "discipline" at the time; only later did the lack of discussion strike me as inappropriate.

However, the SWP is even more top-down in other ways. The SWP leadership decides how, where and with whom its members live; I knew a member in the northeast who was told to move to the south within a week, no questions asked. This wasn't uncommon, either. I can recall only one time in which the leadership was questioned by a member, and the leadership promptly circulated a long-winded and unnecessarily brutal response (I honestly can't remember what it was about, but it wasn't that serious of an issue). Again, it wasn't until I saw how other groups operated that I realized how inappropriate and petty the leadership's actions were.

Another impression I got was that many members parrot views they don't even believe themselves (internally, we're not talking about external party discipline here). I asked multiple members why the SWP views the present Russian Federation as a deformed worker state (which is absurd), and it mostly ended with "that's just the way it is" (this happened on other issues as well). There was little to no honest discussion about politics within the party.


What activity did your group do, and what activity do you know of that other sections of the organization did? Who edits Militant, and how difficult is it to contribute to that paper?

Selling the Militant and pushing Pathfinder books was (and is) the long-and-short of most SWP activity. At one of the national conferences, I remember that Mary Alice-Waters made a glowing speech about a new book Pathfinder had published, and this ended up being the most momentous announcement at the event. The SWP is also involved in electoral campaigns, but they don't get too much visibility other than ballot access. That's about it, outreach is practically nonexistent unless they're selling something.

I'm not sure who exactly edits the Militant, they have a few ranking members and regulars. If you work with the party for some time and write an article that tows the party line, I think you could contribute to the paper without too much of a problem (but then again, that would require you to quit your present job, probably move to another city and dedicate a large amount of your free time to selling the paper).


More importantly, how many active members do they have? And do they do anything of relevance ever?

The original article said about 11 dozen members total (around 130), which seems pretty accurate. The entire membership of the YS, nationwide, was something like 15-20 when I was there. Branches were being consolidated left and right about two years ago, Barnes even stated he wanted to bring every YS member possible into NYC in order to "compete" with other left groups in the city, ostensibly because the only way they could increase NYC membership was by ordering members from Minneapolis to move across the country.

The SWP is, theoretically, vocal about the Cuban 5, about solidarity with the Cuban Revolution, about immigrants' rights, about Mumia, about combating imperialism. However, this is usually a whole lot of rhetoric. The article posted talked a lot about "lip service", and this really hits the nail on the head. Lip service about solidarity, extreme sectarianism in practice; lip service about struggle, total lethargy in practice. Unless they're selling something, they don't do much at all.

[RHIZOMES]

Well I suppose you learn something everyday. I've never encountered the Communist League in person and I wouldn't take this as true without verifying it myself (especially comming from Chebol who has in the past slandered groups like the ICL-FI, accusing them of recruiting outside mental asylums and living in a single household here wages are pooled).

Believe me, the NZ CL are completely irrelevant and have been for 15+ years. The only relevant Marxist groups in NZ are Socialist Aotearoa and Workers Party. They haven't had a new recruit in like 8+ years and all they do is sell Militants and Pathfinder books.

[chebol]

Niccolo, just because you don't want things to be so doesn't make it slander.

As you seem to regularly confess, you don't often know a lot about these groups, but are all too happy to contest facts that don't suit your world view.

As for the Communist League here in Oz, I'm actually on fairly good terms with most of them, but the fact remains that most of them *do* work in meat-packing.

Their main political activity is around Cuba, in particular the campaign for the Cuban Five, for which they are to be commended, and they have been peripherally involved in the campaign against the NT intervention.

On the other hand, they do little else, and have taken the idiotic position that calling for a boycott campaign against Israel is "anti-semitic".

You do the math.

[RHIZOMES]

Niccolo, just because you don't want things to be so doesn't make it slander.

As you seem to regularly confess, you don't often know a lot about these groups, but are all too happy to contest facts that don't suit your world view.

As for the Communist League here in Oz, I'm actually on fairly good terms with most of them, but the fact remains that most of them *do* work in meat-packing.

Their main political activity is around Cuba, in particular the campaign for the Cuban Five, for which they are to be commended, and they have been peripherally involved in the campaign against the NT intervention.

On the other hand, they do little else, and have taken the idiotic position that calling for a boycott campaign against Israel is "anti-semitic".

You do the math.

The CL in NZ lift their election manifestos completely off the American SWP. So for Auckland mayoral campaigns they have stuff like "We are for the nuclear electrification of Haiti".

[Niccolò Rossi]

Niccolo, just because you don't want things to be so doesn't make it slander.

Given the numerous comments by other posters on the SWP's membership, I would take more seriously now the claim about meatpacking. Having a membership which is disproportionaltely made up of meatpackers I don't think is the core problem, a much bigger problem is workerist nonsense that comes with it.

Either way, Chebol, you haven't even bothered to defend yourself. You have blatently slandered groups like the ICFI and ICL-FI on here before. As such I think I have every reason to take what you have to say about other groups activity and membership with a grain of salt.


As you seem to regularly confess, you don't often know a lot about these groups, but are all too happy to contest facts that don't suit your world view.

Where is this comming from? I don't think I've ever admitted to not 'know[ing] a lot about these groups', let alone on multiple occasions.

Also, I'm not sure what you imagine my 'world view' to be, especially if you think it involves defending the SWP.


You do the math.

I already have (see my first post) and it didn't involve their occupational or racial demography.

[Revy]

On the other hand, they do little else, and have taken the idiotic position that calling for a boycott campaign against Israel is "anti-semitic".


the American SWP takes the same position. (http://www.themilitant.com/2009/7313/731336.html)