Expelled from the Dutch Socialist Party...

[Q]

Some background: I joined the SP in early 2003. I was not a communist at the time but was developing my political views. When I concluded in 2005 that the party really had little to offer in terms of theory or answers to the problems in society, I started looking for Marxist organisations in the SP. Thus I came into contact with the group Offensief (Dutch section of the CWI).

In January this year the party leadership decided that Offensief was a political party in its own right and therefore a rule in the party constitution was applicable, namely that SP members may not be a member of other parties. When we called them out on that bullshit ("what exactly is your definition of a party?") they changed the accusation to "organisation", which poses new problems...

I'll post the letter I received and my protest against it. I'm sorry for any silly translations, but I did this quite fast :)


On February 21 the party council, the highest democratic body in the SP, backed the view of the party executive of January 9, 2009 that a double membership between Offensief and SP can not be allowed. In response to my call of June 15, 2009 to you to choose between one or the other I received the reply from you that you would opt for the SP. However you're still active as contact for Offensief.

Unfortunately now comes the time for the party board to make that choice for you. This is unfortunate, because we don't like losing members of another political party or organization.

The breach of statutory obligations (ban on dual membership association of Article 5 paragraph 1.b.) in this case leads to disqualification from the membership by the Executive (under Statute art. 8 paragraph 4a). On behalf of the party board, I'll resign you from the administration as SP member.

Best regards,

Hans van Heijningen
General Secretary

My protest (sent to party executive, branch leadership and active members in my branch):


Dear (ex) party-members,

With indignation I received the message that I am expelled by the SP partyleadership. As such I submit an official protest against this expulsion.

The given reason for my expulsion: the ban on dual membership of Offensief and SP. I am indeed a member of Offensief, but I dispute the conclusion that dual membership of SP and Offensief is objectionable or contrary to the constitution of the SP.

The party executive previously stated that dual membership of Offensief and SP are no longer allowed because the latter is a political party and thus contrary to the constitution which bans double membership of another political party. I dispute this.

It seems that the conclusion that Offensief is political party is based on the findings of an inquiry. Offensief-members were however never heard by this inquiry, indeed, we only heard of its existence after she published her findings. We had no fair chance to defend ourselves in the first place.

On the repeated question to indicate how Offensief was a political party, we got no answer. Later on there was suddenly an addition to the accusation: "political party or organization". A conscious way to evade the question. But this only boomerangs the question back harder: Does the party leadership act completely at will regarding this question?

Moreover, in the said article of the constitution to which the party executive refers to it says the following: "Everyone [can become member] who lives in the Netherlands and every Dutchman who lives abroad and is not a member of another political party". So no "organization" part, which is what Offensief is. When the pressure was stepped up on me last June to make a choice, I kept this rule in mind and consciously choose for the SP, as that is the only party of two.

And I can't imagine it otherwise, then that the relevant constitutional rules are intended to prevent a member from being both in the SP and (for example) in the Labor Party, or any other political party that competes with the SP. Offensief is both in volume and goal NOT a political party. We do not participate in elections but call for an SP vote. We do not want to "cream off" members of the SP, but call instead for people to join the SP. We do not compete with the SP but help build the SP. In short, there is a fundamental difference between Offensief and the PvdA, GroenLinks, etc., for whom the provision in the constitution seems to have been intended.

Offensief is a group around some particular ideas and is organized. We are members of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI). We release a newspaper and organize meetings. But does this damage the SP? The opposite is the case in my opinion. The socialist movement has a long history of internal democracy, the existence of organized groups, platforms, factions, etc. within its ranks. I believe we can learn from that history that a great freedom of debate, the ability to criticize, even in an organized form, is the only movement forward. The struggle for a socialist society is not easy. Debate and criticism are vitally necessary to find the right way forward.

This applies with double strength for the current period. The current generation of the youth and workers has the experience of the undemocratic social-democratic and communist parties, the SP will only (continue to) be supported if these people are convinced that the SP has become an open, democratic party.

My expulsion and the attempts to exclude Offensief from the SP however indicate a trend towards a closed, monolithic party and create a dangerous precedent. With the same arguments that have been used against Offensief, any group, any platform, any opposition can be thrown out from the SP.

I think that criticism to the direction of the party executive is sorely needed, especially now. The party executive moves gradually to the right, both in ideas and in deeds. I point in this regard to the weakening of our stances on the NATO and the monarchy, and the practice of participating in a neo-liberal policies in areas where the SP is in a local coalition. Government participation has become a serious option for the party executive. It seems as if it has become more important to appeal to future coalition parties than to stand up for our supporters. Meanwhile we are punished in elections and let Wilders have the protest votes. The SP is moving to lose its image as the anti-establishment party, and thus the risk of losing support from ordinary people, workers and unemployed. But right now, at this time of serious crisis of capitalism, we need a strong Socialist Party that can unite people to fight against neoliberalism and for a socialist alternative.

This is why I never considered the to quit SP, even though I have many criticisms of the current direction of the party leadership. I am a member of the SP since early 2003. In the past six years I have always actively participated in the party, both in the local branch, and nationally and within the youth club ROOD. Granted it was not always an easy task, as the older party members will surely remember, but I was always passionately devoted to our party and I always tried to motivate people in my area to join the SP. In the coming period, so much work needs to be done, I see opportunities to build our party a lot. I want to seize these opportunities, where I will also put forward criticism besides my support for the SP. I want to discuss these IN the party. Now however I'm denied that possibility.

I call on you, to take a stand against my expulsion and the decision to roll back the decision to put a ban on the double membership of Offensief and the SP.

[IrishWorker]

Some background: I joined the SP in early 2003. I was not a communist at the time but was developing my political views. When I concluded in 2005 that the party really had little to offer in terms of theory or answers to the problems in society, I started looking for Marxist organisations in the SP. Thus I came into contact with the group Offensief (Dutch section of the CWI).

In January this year the party leadership decided that Offensief was a political party in its own right and therefore a rule in the party constitution was applicable, namely that SP members may not be a member of other parties. When we called them out on that bullshit ("what exactly is your definition of a party?") they changed the accusation to "organisation", which poses new problems...

I'll post the letter I received and my protest against it. I'm sorry for any silly translations, but I did this quite fast :)



My protest (sent to party executive, branch leadership and active members in my branch):
Get of the fence...

[Wanted Man]

Congratulations, it's not a place for revolutionaries to be anyway.

[Rjevan]

Though I understand that it's frustrating to be thrown out of a party you were member in for 6 years - because of some sectarian bs - , invested time and money and supported them, but I'd still say: be glad that you are done this those hypocrites and reformists, it's not that you are dependent on them, it's the other way around, if they want to lose you, fair enough, their problem, not yours.

[Revy]

Has Offensief considered becoming a party? (perhaps under a more fashionable name). You can join the European Anticapitalist Left.

[red cat]

Just a general question. What do these parties make you do?

[dez]

And I can't imagine it otherwise, then that the relevant constitutional rules are intended to prevent a member from being both in the SP and (for example) in the Labor Party, or any other political party that competes with the SP. Offensief is both in volume and goal NOT a political party. We do not participate in elections but call for an SP vote. We do not want to "cream off" members of the SP, but call instead for people to join the SP. We do not compete with the SP but help build the SP. In short, there is a fundamental difference between Offensief and the PvdA, GroenLinks, etc., for whom the provision in the constitution seems to have been intended.



Seems to me that to the SP, even though offensief isn't a political party and is not interested in elections, offensief is an independant political organization with its own goals and purposes that (from this point forward) may not be the same as the SP.
From an outsider's perspective, it totally makes sense.
They used offensief, and now when they think they dont need you anymore, you get the boot.



I think that criticism to the direction of the party executive is sorely needed, especially now. The party executive moves gradually to the right, both in ideas and in deeds. I point in this regard to the weakening of our stances on the NATO and the monarchy, and the practice of participating in a neo-liberal policies in areas where the SP is in a local coalition. Government participation has become a serious option for the party executive. It seems as if it has become more important to appeal to future coalition parties than to stand up for our supporters. Meanwhile we are punished in elections and let Wilders have the protest votes. The SP is moving to lose its image as the anti-establishment party, and thus the risk of losing support from ordinary people, workers and unemployed. But right now, at this time of serious crisis of capitalism, we need a strong Socialist Party that can unite people to fight against neoliberalism and for a socialist alternative.


If you can get that point across the SP, it could be rewarding, but otherwise youre better off not being hamstringed by their structure.
Just saying.

[chegitz guevara]

Dutch SP :thumbdown:

American SP :thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder if the SP is applying the same standard with the IMT. :rolleyes:

[Asoka89]

Reminds of me of the Militant Labor disputes of the 1980s.

Jacob Ritcher you missed your opening to discuss why entryism is a bad tactic and I'm lazy to do it for you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Deep entryism is only valid for a PNNC: a proletarian not necessarily communist party.

Such a party meets the three criteria in the Communist Manifesto that bourgeois worker parties never meet: "formation of the proletariat into a class [for itself], overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

Other than that, I'm more mixed on entryism than you are, Asoka. It is just a tactic, but one not necessarily justifiable on theoretical grounds.

For example, if I were a German I'd personally like to join Die Linke on an individual basis only because I like Oskar Lafontaine's uncle personality and because I like to work with radicals in that party... and I'd like the opportunity to say to Lothar Bisky, Gregor Gysi, Petra Pau and the rest of the "realo" gang, "Shut your mouths, you assholes! (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,651100-2,00.html)" :D

On the other hand, if I were British or French, I wouldn't waste time with the social-corporatist Labour party or Parti de Gauche (the Melenchon breakaway from the main "Socialist Party," despite being personally endorsed by Oskar Lafontaine), respectively.

The NDP here in Canada is too obvious a "No" case, too.

[Q]

Has Offensief considered becoming a party? (perhaps under a more fashionable name). You can join the European Anticapitalist Left.
Well, I don't see us participating in elections just yet, but the focus on independent work - while we did that before - will now get our complete attention. Perhaps it is better this way, because the SP structures took up quite a lot of our time anyway and I was getting increasingly pessimistic about any rewards in this non-democratic climate. Perhaps we can have a new focus when their membership will be rebelling against the party executive at some point in the (near?) future, but for now I think that independent work is the way forward. Especially because more and more people are looking for clear anti-capitalist answers. Perhaps joining the EACL has some benefit, but I'm not quite sure.


Seems to me that to the SP, even though offensief isn't a political party and is not interested in elections, offensief is an independant political organization with its own goals and purposes that (from this point forward) may not be the same as the SP.
From an outsider's perspective, it totally makes sense.
They used offensief, and now when they think they dont need you anymore, you get the boot.
Well, it would have made sense if the executive used this argumentation in 1998, when Offensief entered the SP, not now. It's really a pretty obvious way to get rid of critical socialists.


If you can get that point across the SP, it could be rewarding, but otherwise youre better off not being hamstringed by their structure.
Just saying.
The letter was written with the rank and file in mind, not to convince some bureaucrats and careerists. I will remain in personal contact with some active members too. Although denied the platform I had as a party member, I'm not quite alone.


I wonder if the SP is applying the same standard with the IMT. :rolleyes:
The IMT doesn't exist in the Netherlands. We never felt the need to split over bullshit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps joining the EACL has some benefit, but I'm not quite sure.

Won't the CWI disallow that, since the EACL is sort of a competitor international?

Ideally, I'd like to see Offensief as part of the CWI, EACL, and also the European Left equivalent.

[BTW, it has gotten to the point where one can easily be confused about the differences between the Party of the European Left, the European United Left, and the European United Left-Nordic Green Left. Basically I'm referring to the parliamentary grouping headed by that German geriatric Lothar Bisky.]

[Q]

Won't the CWI disallow that, since the EACL is sort of a competitor international?
SPEW is a part?

Anyway, the EACL seems quite dead. The last update on their website stems from 2007...


Ideally, I'd like to see Offensief as part of the CWI, EACL, and also the European Left equivalent.Offensief is a section of the CWI. The CWI is not a loose coalition of national organisations and parties, but a centralised international organisation. But yeah, I don't see how being involved in more networks (that are alive!) hurts anyone.


[BTW, it has gotten to the point where one can easily be confused about the differences between the Party of the European Left, the European United Left, and the European United Left-Nordic Green Left. Basically I'm referring to the parliamentary grouping headed by that German geriatric Lothar Bisky.]In European Parliament? Wasn't the CWI already in that (Joe Higgins being in parliament and all)? I don't see the point of us being involved in that individually.

Anecdote: I just went to the local branch meeting of the SP, one of the leadership stood outside and refused to let me in. When I said that I was "more of an SP'er than he would ever be", he got quite pissed at me and called the police (which subsequently didn't show up).

So sad and so hilarious at the same time :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Has Offensief considered becoming a party? (perhaps under a more fashionable name). You can join the European Anticapitalist Left.

I don't think either side would have much to gain from that.


I wonder if the SP is applying the same standard with the IMT. :rolleyes:

The IMT doesn't exist here.


Anecdote: I just went to the local branch meeting of the SP, one of the leadership stood outside and refused to let me in. When I said that I was "more of an SP'er than he would ever be", he got quite pissed at me and called the police (which subsequently didn't show up).

So sad and so hilarious at the same time :lol:


:lol: Jesus! Good job putting him in his place though. Where was the SP at the anti-capitalist demonstration against the banks today? There were probably more Offensief members than SP members there, which is a big achievement in a way... Or maybe there were a lot of SP members, but they did a good job of hiding it. I mean, if you're a socialist party, you can't do such a horrible thing as publicly opposing capitalism... :lol:

[Saorsa]

Sorry to hear about your expulsion mate, and good luck with fighting the undemocratic stuff going on. That said, I suspect this is further proof that entryism is an outdated and flawed tactic, and your time will be better spent outside of the SP.

Out of curiosity, does Offensief argue against the SP position on open borders?

[Lolshevik]

What I'm wondering is; does a majority of Offensief now favor an open turn or are you guys concentrating your efforts on getting back into the SP?

[Eat the Rich]

I think you guys should continue work in the SP if it is active and attracts many people like Q was when he entered the SP.
If it is not an active party with members then you shouldn't waste time on it and concentrate on open work. Also you can organize a campaign against your expulsion, with the aim being to attract as many dissilutioned SP members as possible because of this undemocratic behaviour.

Entrism is not a dogma. When the conditions are not ripe for entrism,mostly independent work should be done, while keeping an eye on the mass organizations in case a mass centrist current forms, along with a ferment within its ranks (such as the one in Synaspismos in Greece).

[Revy]

I think you guys should continue work in the SP if it is active and attracts many people like Q was when he entered the SP.
If it is not an active party with members then you shouldn't waste time on it and concentrate on open work. Also you can organize a campaign against your expulsion, with the aim being to attract as many dissilutioned SP members as possible because of this undemocratic behaviour.

Entrism is not a dogma. When the conditions are not ripe for entrism,mostly independent work should be done, while keeping an eye on the mass organizations in case a mass centrist current forms, along with a ferment within its ranks (such as the one in Synaspismos in Greece).

They can't continue if they're being expelled.:closedeyes:
The letter was written so that the expulsions would be rescinded. But it doesn't look like they will be.

[Bilan]

That is bizarre. Though I don't know all the details of it, from what you have depicted, it seems quite unnecessary to expell you for being a member of an organisation which supports the SP. That, to me, makes no sense; it is entirely illogical, and is indeed, attacking the SP's own support base.
Though, with the Offensief, what does it look like you will do now considering this conflict between the SP and Offensief?

[Q]

Where was the SP at the anti-capitalist demonstration against the banks today? There were probably more Offensief members than SP members there, which is a big achievement in a way... Or maybe there were a lot of SP members, but they did a good job of hiding it. I mean, if you're a socialist party, you can't do such a horrible thing as publicly opposing capitalism... :lol:
Sad, as there were some branches present in the meetings planning this demo. However, at the first meeting there was also someone representing ROOD (SP youth organisation) and she was very silent during the whole meeting. When someone asked her explicitly for her opinion, she simply stated "well, I don't think that this is something for us". Should have been a sign... :closedeyes:


That said, I suspect this is further proof that entryism is an outdated and flawed tactic, and your time will be better spent outside of the SP.
I disagree. I think that entryism as a strategy (long term) is flawed, but can be useful as a tactic (short term). Of course the nature of the party you're working in has to be judged in every concrete situation. The SP is a very centralist and bureaucratic party. While having some initial successes when Offensief entered in 1998, we were getting more and more isolated and the leadership was effective at putting us away as "outsiders" and "parasites" because we were organised. Any initial gains haven't weight up to the time and energy spent imho.


Out of curiosity, does Offensief argue against the SP position on open borders?Yes. During the last Euro elections the SP had the slogan "less Brussels", which we argued against. There are many other cases of the nationalist attitude of the party that we opposed.


What I'm wondering is; does a majority of Offensief now favor an open turn or are you guys concentrating your efforts on getting back into the SP?
There is little other option then to work independently, is there? Every time we get out our paper and a leadership figure sees it, we'll get booted.


The letter was written so that the expulsions would be rescinded. But it doesn't look like they will be.
The letter was written with the membership in mind, not so much to convince bureaucrats and careerists.


That is bizarre. Though I don't know all the details of it, from what you have depicted, it seems quite unnecessary to expell you for being a member of an organisation which supports the SP. That, to me, makes no sense; it is entirely illogical, and is indeed, attacking the SP's own support base.
This is exactly one of our points: today it's Offensief members who are booted, who is it tomorrow? We're examples here of the message "don't get too critical, or else..."

Though, with the Offensief, what does it look like you will do now considering this conflict between the SP and Offensief?I'll stay a member of Offensief and even if I weren't I wouldn't easily consider going back now. The party is rapidly moving towards realpolitik and I already now the activists that are interesting and militant and I don't need the party to keep in touch with them. So I'll be focussing on independent work in my area (which is something I already did for a large part anyhow).

[Wanted Man]

That is bizarre. Though I don't know all the details of it, from what you have depicted, it seems quite unnecessary to expell you for being a member of an organisation which supports the SP. That, to me, makes no sense; it is entirely illogical, and is indeed, attacking the SP's own support base.

It seems to me that the SP does not consider Offensief to be part of "their own support base". To them, Offensief are dangerous communist parasites, who are trying to "sell newspapers" (shock horror! to be fair, that can be annoying, but hardly a reason to expel people) and doing such horrible things as agitating against capitalism, presenting a coherent vision of socialist society, opposing nationalism and parliamentarism, etc.

[Q]

It seems to me that the SP does not consider Offensief to be part of "their own support base". To them, Offensief are dangerous communist parasites, who are trying to "sell newspapers" (shock horror! to be fair, that can be annoying, but hardly a reason to expel people) and doing such horrible things as agitating against capitalism, presenting a coherent vision of socialist society, opposing nationalism and parliamentarism, etc.
I don't see how selling papers was ever "annoying". I personally only used to sell them after branch meetings and never in an annoying way either (blocking doors, standing before persons, etc). But I guess the mere fact you sell a paper can be very outrageous for some people...

Anyway, someone couldn't quite picture the "hidden drama" that wasn't highlighted in the OP letter. So I'll highlight a general overview of my experiences of the past six years:

- I became a of the SP member in early 2003. I was 18 and already looking for two years (on and off) for some organisation in which I felt comfortable. At 16 I began looking around, but at the time thought the SP as a "bit extreme", later I felt more and more drawn to the party's stances. 2003 was a tumultuous year in Dutch politics. In May the year before Pim Fortuyn was assassinated a week before the elections by an animal rights activist and his "List Pim Fortuyn" party subsequently got 26 seats in parliament out of 150, unheard of for a new party. The party got into a coalition of Christian-Democrats (CDA) and Liberals (VVD), but was unable to govern at all and imploded within the year, leading to new elections in January 2003. This was a decisive moment for me to become active and the reason I joined the SP: to make a real difference for Dutch society.

- In August 2003 I first became active after reading that there was going to be a meeting in my neighbourhood in the branch newsletter (added as a supplementary in the party's monthly paper for members "Tribune") and I kinda "rolled in" the activities of the branch this way. Later on I was also going to be active on a national plane and I tried setting up a regional branch of ROOD (SP youth organisation - which failed btw) and also became a member of the branch's leadership in the period 2004 to late 2005.

- Around medium 2005, I can't pinpoint it anymore and it was more of a process, I had finished my internalisation of the party's ideology and I started to develop doubts about the party's ideas. When I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of the party's core values "solidarity, human dignity and equality", I reached a hard wall. In other words: there were no answers. I eventually started looking consciously for a Marxist organisation, preferably inside the SP as I didn't want to leave the SP just yet. After some quick googling around I concluded that there was only one option, which was Offensief (technically not true as I later found out, as the Mandelites are also active inside the SP, but that wasn't really my fault as they really are quite invisible). So I contacted them and was invited for a national meeting in Rotterdam. While that was quite far away for me (2 hours by train) I went anyway and after just one meeting I decided to join them as I directly felt they had a lot to offer to my burning questions. This was early November 2005. It would take another two years or so before I recognised myself as a communist.

- In the period 2005 to 2007 I was lesser active in the SP branch. I resigned from my position in the branch leadership because I got completely frustrated with it. There was a new branch leadership every 6 months or so and the new one accomplished as little as the previous one. At one time we discussed over three months the status of a selfmade stand and which color it should be painted! In early 2007 though we more or less got our current leadership together, which thusfar has remained relatively stable (although the branch chair resigned very quickly, which caused more drama). After the new round of drama I called for more democratisation in the branch. This was not appreciated by the branch leadership, which suspended me for three months, effectivelt silencing me in the general branch meeting to be held about this subject.

- On the summerschool of ROOD in 2006 I also participated, for the first time as an Offensief member and a bit nervous in that position as it was all new for me. At this point in time only a handful of people knew I was a member of Offensief so I was quite surprised that as soon as I reached the place where the summerschool would be held I was taken apart by the chair of ROOD (Renske Leijten, currently an MP for the SP) who told me that if she saw an Offensief paper, "I would be in deep shit". I was there with another Offensief member, which arrived later on site and after some discussion we decided that we wouldn't accept the restriction of freedom of political opinion and we would sell anyhow. But we also decided that we, as to avoid any trouble, we would only do this in one on one discussions and only of the person was interested we would take it out. Afterwards I recognise this was an error on our part, because the leadership found out about the papers anyhow and portrayed us as "secret infiltrators" and got kicked off the site. What we should have done of course was to openly challenge the restriction.

- This affair would have far reaching repercussions for the next two years (!). First an "inquery" was made by the ROOD leadership in which they looked if Offensief membership could be combined with SP/ROOD membership, they concluded they couldn't bend the rules in their favor, so in June 2007 (I think) they gave the advice that next time we should be suspended and that only then they could kick us out. By this they prepared the next round of attacks. At the national members meeting in May (or so) 2008 that other member of Offensief which was also present in the 2006 summerschool distributed leaflets to other ROOD members in an attempt to mobilise people for a big antiracist demonstration just across the border in Cologne in September that year. For this "crime" he was immediately suspended and eventually expelled from ROOD in October that year.

- In medium 2007 another bit of drama unfolded in the party as a chosen senator was kicked out of the SP. A few weeks before he was kicked out in August that year he started with a few other active SP member the "Committee for Democratisation in the SP" (CDSP). Offensief members, including me, participated in this aswell. Soon the CDSP imploded though as most of the active members splitted away after the senator was kicked out, and formed their own party (this party, Solidara, has also imploded btw, a non-relevant and dieing sect around a careerist). While we never supported the split, the leadership of the SP thought we were responsible.

- This brings us to the latest chapter. In January 2009 the party leadership suddenly decided they could make their move (for whatever reason) and say that Offensief was a political party, effectuating a rule in the constitution saying SP members may not be a member of other parties. As such we had to choose between Offensief and the SP. We chose not to choose as in our opinion there was no conflict. In June the pressure was raised and the party leadership threathened to "choose for us" if we didn't. Also the leadership changed the accusation from "party" to "political organisation" after we openly asked what they defined as a "party", but as the letter explains, that only made things more sticky. Because Offensief wasn't a political party (as per constitutional rule) I chose for the SP, as that was obviously the only party of the two. However the party leadership found my name on a website of a demonstration as a contact name for Offensief, so they sent me a letter saying I was expelled.

- I've made an official protest in the form of the letter in the OP, which was sent to SP party leadership, branch leadership and active members. But this is just show really. The appeal is going to be for the party council (party leadership + all branch chairs) which is by vast majority a mindless institute in the pocket of the leadership. But the point is that this will be made public as widely as possible to the membership. To them the letter is meant to convince, not to the bureaucrats and careerists of the party elite.

So yeah, not all of it, but a lot :lol:

[Wanted Man]

I don't see how selling papers was ever "annoying". I personally only used to sell them after branch meetings and never in an annoying way either (blocking doors, standing before persons, etc). But I guess the mere fact you sell a paper can be very outrageous for some people...
I figured that, and I agree with your position. It just shows how silly it is to take offence to that kind of thing, as an excuse to kick people out. Anyway, thanks for the info. It confirms a lot about what people have been saying about the SP.


At this point in time only a handful of people knew I was a member of Offensief so I was quite surprised that as soon as I reached the place where the summerschool would be held I was taken apart by the chair of ROOD (Renske Leijten, currently an MP for the SP) who told me that if she saw an Offensief paper, "I would be in deep shit".

Ahh, Renske. A living argument against avoiding (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-comrades-mind-t118468/index.html) the word "****".

[L.J.Solidarity]

The behavior of ROOD reminds me quite a lot of what is going on in Linksjugend ['solid] against members of SAV. The leadership and some people close to them managed to convince almost everybody active in Linksjugend that we're an evil parasitic mind-control cult trying to steal their members and that entryism means trotskyists try to "destroy" organisations.
At this year's summer camp they didn't bother to ban us from selling stuff yet (we were even allowed to host discussions and at least 1/3 of the meetings were organized by us due to the laziness of the majority) but it's always portrayed as some kind of deadly sin. Until now they didn't dare to expel anybody due to Die Linke's "pluralism", but I guess it's quite likely to happen at the national conference in either 2010 or 2011, perhaps earlier in some states where we're particularly well-hated.

[KC]

Seems to me that to the SP, even though offensief isn't a political party and is not interested in elections, offensief is an independant political organization with its own goals and purposes that (from this point forward) may not be the same as the SP.
From an outsider's perspective, it totally makes sense.
They used offensief, and now when they think they dont need you anymore, you get the boot.

The most hilarious part about this is that Offensief was originally intending to use the SP and gain members through working within the SP, yet the opposite happened.

Anyways, I think this just goes to show how pointless entryism is as a tactic and how this sort of opportunism only leads to failures.

[Q]

The behavior of ROOD reminds me quite a lot of what is going on in Linksjugend ['solid] against members of SAV. The leadership and some people close to them managed to convince almost everybody active in Linksjugend that we're an evil parasitic mind-control cult trying to steal their members and that entryism means trotskyists try to "destroy" organisations.
Sounds familiar, yes :rolleyes:


At this year's summer camp they didn't bother to ban us from selling stuff yet (we were even allowed to host discussions and at least 1/3 of the meetings were organized by us due to the laziness of the majority) but it's always portrayed as some kind of deadly sin. Until now they didn't dare to expel anybody due to Die Linke's "pluralism", but I guess it's quite likely to happen at the national conference in either 2010 or 2011, perhaps earlier in some states where we're particularly well-hated.
Die Linke is still very fluidic in the west, given the WASG background which was very plural. I think that makes the difference. However I have a strong impression that the SP is seen as somewhat of a rolemodel in how to run a party by the diverse bureaucracies of Europe. I know that there is quite a bit of contact between Die Linke and the SP. There's a fat chance that the expulsion in the Netherlands is going to be used as an opportunity for the leadership in Die Linke against the SAV. You're in a much stronger position though.

[Led Zeppelin]

I disagree. I think that entryism as a strategy (long term) is flawed, but can be useful as a tactic (short term). Of course the nature of the party you're working in has to be judged in every concrete situation. The SP is a very centralist and bureaucratic party. While having some initial successes when Offensief entered in 1998, we were getting more and more isolated and the leadership was effective at putting us away as "outsiders" and "parasites" because we were organised. Any initial gains haven't weight up to the time and energy spent imho.

You don't think performing entryism for over a decade qualifies as long-term?

Also, although I agree with your analysis of the failure of entryism in this context, I do have to wonder about the health of Offensief as an organization, because the leadership which presided over this utter failure since the beginning is still doing the leading, and would still have pursued this failed policy if it wasn't stopped by the SP.

I suppose in that respect you owe the SP for helping you correct a mistake, though it doesn't say much good about a political organization if it requires other parties to correct their mistakes.

[Q]

You don't think performing entryism for over a decade qualifies as long-term?
Yes, it is.


Also, although I agree with your analysis of the failure of entryism in this context, I do have to wonder about the democratic nature of Offensief because the leadership which presided over this utter failure since the beginning is still doing the leading, and would still have pursued this failed policy if it wasn't stopped by the SP.
Well, the democracy is intact as a majority has at least not enough incentive to kick out any leading figures. And I can't help it that some critical ex-members chose to boycott Offensief (why yes, you) :) But I'll be pushing for some critical self-reflection now as we close this chapter of the organisation.


I suppose in that respect you owe the SP for helping you correct a mistake.
Agreed. I was increasingly getting pessimistic about SP work over the last two years or so. But I was simply in a minority.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, the democracy is intact as a majority has at least not enough incentive to kick out any leading figures.

Which has to make you wonder about those members' political sense, if they don't see the need to take action against a leadership which has presided over a failed policy that has lasted for over a decade.

Then again, isn't it the case that the majority of the membership of Offensief is actually in the leadership, or is at least a large percentage of it?

That partly explains why nothing has been done, or can be done.


And I can't help it that some critical ex-members chose to boycott Offensief (why yes, you) :) But I'll be pushing for some critical self-reflection now as we close this chapter of the organisation.

Well, it's not really a boycott since I'm not abstaining from participation in Offensief to force or pressure them to take a certain position on anything. I'm simply indifferent about it because I don't see it as having any hope due to the way its structured and dominated by the aforementioned leadership.

The problem with small organizations is that over time personal connections gain the upper hand in party organizing and structuring, and eventually come to dominate them. The organization becomes the personal property of a few people and they justify this by citing their history in building up this organization.

Of course, in any half-serious organization the fact that the core of the leadership presided over a decade-long failed policy should have resulted in some form of action being taken Why has this not happened in Offensief? Why have you personally not called for it? Why have none of the other members done so? Do you not think that this decade-long failure has wasted enormous amounts of energy and time that could have been spent doing more productive things?

This is why I don't believe Offensief can be a viable organization by itself. They've proven to be incapable of applying the most basic political principle; when you make a mistake you acknowledge it, you correct it, and the people responsible for the mistake are reprimanded in some form by the membership. Not only has no action been taken, but the majority of the leadership still believes they were and are correct.

Lenin was entirely right on the question of the organization's attitude towards its own mistakes:


A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification -- that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses. By failing to fulfil this duty and give the utmost attention and consideration to the study of their patent error, the "Lefts" in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism.

EDIT: Also, I edited out "democratic nature of Offensief" and replaced it with "health of Offensief", because limitations on size is not a valid criticism and that has to do with the democracy issue. When the leadership comprises the majority of the active membership, or a very large percentage of it, then you can't really blame the others for not being able to do anything.

[Tower of Bebel]

IMO, Entryism as a long-term tactic is not viable. Entryism meant fighting as marxists. Today many "mass" parties won't allow that.

The problem with small organizations is that over time personal connections gain the upper hand in party organizing and structuring, and eventually come to dominate them. The organization becomes the personal property of a few people and they justify this by citing their history in building up this organization.

Of course, in any half-serious organization the fact that the core of the leadership presided over a decade-long failed policy should have resulted in some form of action being taken Why has this not happened in Offensief? Why have you personally not called for it? Why have none of the other members done so? Do you not think that this decade-long failure has wasted enormous amounts of energy and time that could have been spent doing more productive things?
I don't think that Offensief stands alone. The entryist tactic has been supported and justified (I think) by the international and their close-by collegues of the LSP (Belgium).

As there is no distinction possible between 'ordinary members' and 'leadership', it's hard to imagine Offensief without "personal connections" that dominate the party or people who regard the organization as personal property.

The Belgian section has (or suffers from) that same characteristic. Only recently did the party concider it possible to start developing alternative structures which should (or would) give local sections and intermediary committees more diverse means to act "independently" from the national committee. However, the national bureau, the national committee, and the different regional committees and bureaus are linked together by personal ties. There is no doubt about that.

Having only 300 people in a country very much devided into 2 or even 3 parts, makes it difficult to set up and organize a 'self-regulating' party. Even worse, the defeat of the workers' movement in the face of neoliberalism and the ongoing bureaucratic manoeuvres of the union bureaucracies resulted in the loss of experience among workers, especially young workers. For the party this means that a few old(er) comrades, who set up the party in the late 70's and early 80's, form the only practical source of experience regaring class struggle, revolutionary theory, the fomulation of a program and consequently demands and tactics, and of course party building.

This however does not necessarily address the possibility of theoretical and strategic mistakes.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't think that Offensief stands alone.

Certainly not, and I hope I wasn't implying that; the vast majority of revolutionary leftist organizations suffer from this problem, though all in different ways and to different extents.

All happy revolutionary parties are alike; every sect is unhappy in its own way.


As there is no distinction possible between 'ordinary members' and 'leadership', it's hard to imagine Offensief without "personal connections" that dominate the party or people who regard the organization as personal property.

The Belgian section has (or suffers from) that same characteristic. Only recently did the party concider it possible to start developing alternative structures which should (or would) give local sections and intermediary committees more diverse means to act "independently" from the national committee. However, the national bureau, the national committee, and the different regional committees and bureaus are linked together by personal ties. There is no doubt about that.

Having only 300 people in a country very much devided into 2 or even 3 parts, makes it difficult to set up and organize a 'self-regulating' party. Even worse, the defeat of the workers' movement in the face of neoliberalism and the ongoing bureaucratic manoeuvres of the union bureaucracies resulted in the loss of experience among workers, especially young workers. For the party this means that a few old(er) comrades, who set up the party in the late 70's and early 80's, form the only practical source of experience regaring class struggle, revolutionary theory, the fomulation of a program and consequently demands and tactics, and of course party building.

This however does not necessarily address the possibility of theoretical and strategic mistakes.

Good post, and I agree with you, but I think that in relation to membership numbers you're comparing apples and oranges. The Belgian section has the luxury of not having to deal with the problem I described to such an extreme extent, in that it doesn't decisively - and I would also say destructively - interfere with organizational work, due to its membership size.

It's the same with other CWI sections such as the Irish one.