Lindsey German resigns from the SWP

[The Feral Underclass]

Fuck knows if this was a tactic to make her resign, I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of the situation or why they weren't willing to let her speak (perhaps someone can fill us in on that). To be honest I'm surprised she stayed in as long as she did after Rees was expelled. It was really only a matter of time.

Suffice to say, Smith is clearly a fucking tyrant and it's great to see him slowly fucking up the party. :)

Leaked email exchange between German and Smith (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/02/445902.html)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm amazed there's not a 10-page thread on this already. It's also worth noting that eight members of Newcastle SWP have just resigned in solidarity with another purged member (http://luna17activist.blogspot.com/2010/02/resignations-from-socialist-workers.html). Would the last one out please turn off the lights.

EDIT: TAT, did you mean "a fucking tyrant" there? If not, which tyrant is he fucking? :blink:

[BOZG]

I think this is the best bit after nearly 40 years of membership:

"Please note it is your responsibility to inform your bank to close your Direct Debit/Standing Order."

[Red Commissar]

Could someone give me some background on this situation? I'm not too aware of what's going on in the UK in regards to these kinds of parties.

[ls]

Not too surprising I suppose, the anti-war movement does not = the SWP, no matter how much people try to make out that that's the case. She's still probably somewhat bourgeois, but this is pretty much a step in the right direction I guess (then again she might just be a permanent feature on that "left list of labour" shit and become even more into new labour, becoming a new labour bureaucrat in a matter of days, who knows).

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Could someone give me some background on this situation? I'm not too aware of what's going on in the UK in regards to these kinds of parties.
She was a prominent leading figure in the SWP for literally decades. For most of the 2000s, the party followed a popular frontist course of watering down revolutionary politics and making alliances with Asian "community leaders" in order to try and gain popularity, then a few years back that project completely fell apart in a split that no-one emerged from looking good. Ever since then, there's been internal disagreement about whether the Respect disaster was the responsibility of the entire leadership or just a few leading figures, and German was one of the ones who became a scapegoat. There's more to it, but that's the basics.

[Reuben]

Not too surprising I suppose, the anti-war movement does not = the SWP, no matter how much people try to make out that that's the case. She's still probably somewhat bourgeois, but this is pretty much a step in the right direction I guess (then again she might just be a permanent feature on that "left list of labour" shit and become even more into new labour, becoming a new labour bureaucrat in a matter of days, who knows).
Are you sure your not some humourous chracter of an swp member. I love the way people sometimes use words such as bourgioues - devoid any materialist analysis.

[The Idler]

For a moment I thought "wider movement" was a reference to other socialist organisations, but of course, as ls points out, Labour would be a more suitable home, if they want her.

[ls]

Are you sure your not some humourous chracter of an swp member. I love the way people sometimes use words such as bourgioues - devoid any materialist analysis.

:rolleyes:


She has twice stood as a left wing candidate for Mayor of London, coming fifth in 2004 and most recently standing as the Left List mayoral candidate in the May 2008 elections.

Of course, I am still an agent for the SWP because the SWP are 'ultra-leftist' and reject parliamentarianism. No inter-trot paranoia in your post at all.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Swappies seem very quiet today.
:cool:

[Q]

It's also worth noting that eight members of Newcastle SWP have just resigned in solidarity with another purged member (http://luna17activist.blogspot.com/2010/02/resignations-from-socialist-workers.html). Would the last one out please turn off the lights.
That is interesting actually and signifies the kind of tensions involved here. How big could this split go?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

That is interesting actually and signifies the kind of tensions involved here. How big could this split go?
No idea, really. Certainly not 50/50 or anything close. I'd imagine that the knock-on effect in terms of people becoming disillusioned with both sides will be much larger than the number of people actively leaving to side with the Rees/German faction.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HomoRevolutionary:


Swappies seem very quiet today.

In my case, only because I have been out all day.

I know Lindsey, so this was a surprise and a shock to me. However, a balanced report of what has happend can be found here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/02/lindsey-germans-resignation-from-swp.html

Q:


That is interesting actually and signifies the kind of tensions involved here. How big could this split go?

Hardly a split if a handful resign! Anyway, it's too early to say, but reports of the demise of the SWP go back to the 1970s, and it's still around -- and its larger than your microscopic group.:cool:

[Saorsa]

http://solomonsmindfield.blogspot.com/2010/02/lindsey-german-why-i-resigned-from-swp.html

Lindsey German: Why I resigned from the SWP

I have been asked by many people why I decided to resign from the SWP after a lifetime of commitment to it. I would like to explain the immediate reasons and then to give some background to my decisions and my increasing disenchantment with the direction in which the leadership is taking the party. I hope I can do so in as non confrontational a manner as possible. My resignation marks a turning point in my life and _ whatever the agreement or disagreement with my political positions _ it should be time to move on.

I resigned on Wednesday on my way to a Stop the War public meeting in Newcastle which I had been asked not to attend by the Central Committee. I was first phoned about this two days before by a CC member who told me this wasn't a proper STW meeting, that it was organised by ex members hostile to the party, and that most STW members in Newcastle knew nothing about it. This turned out not to be true, as two sets of minutes of meetings (in the public domain) make clear. Indeed, at the second meeting, it is clear that the only objections to it came from SWP members, one of whom appeared to object to me speaking at it.

A later conversation with the CC member made clear to me that the general feeling of CC members was that I should be asked not to attend the meeting. I found this unacceptable. For the convenor of Stop the War to be stopped from speaking at a STW meeting by the party leadership would not be understood or agreed in the wider movement and I thought it would damage the SWP in the movement locally and nationally. I therefore asked if I would be subject to discipline if I went and if I was being instructed not to go. Although no firm answer was given, it was clear from correspondence with the National Secretary that the CC 'reserved the right' to take action against me. I have always been clear that if political differences between myself and the leadership brought about a conflict like this, I would resign rather than being expelled from an organisation which I have helped to build for more than 37 years, for most of which time I was part of the leadership. That is what I did, with great regret.

I believe the CC was wrong in the particulars of this case, but that this reflected a more general political error. The meeting itself was a success, with 35 people including a number of Muslims attending. There were unfortunately no SWP members (two paper sellers didn't come into the meeting) and only a handful of ex members. Most people represented the breadth of STW and saw themselves, rightly, as at a STW meeting, not some factional gathering.

The leadership's error was compounded by its reply to my resignation, when it glossed over these issues to assert that I resigned because I disagreed with the leadership and because of my membership of the Left Platform. That is simply untrue, and there is no logic in their statement that my resignation invalidated what I said at conference. I resigned because of their actions which I believe did a disservice to the movement. The assertion that there was no question of discipline is not true: the correspondence speaks for itself, as does the National Secretary's reply to my resignation letter.

The wider issues

There are, of course, major political differences, as evidenced in the debate before and during conference, where my position was clearly in a minority. But denigration of the Left Platform doesn't mean those issues and political debates go away, because they stem from real questions in the movement. I believe the party leadership has systematically moved away from the perspective applied in the past decade, which has been so successful in building the anti capitalist and anti war movements. I also believe that much of what we did with Respect was right and that to try to build a left electoral alternative involving working class people, including Muslims, was a courageous thing to do. Its failure meant that honest accounting on this question was impossible, drowned in a frenzy of personal abuse against John Rees for decisions which had been taken collectively.

Instead, the party has moved to a more inward looking and sectarian approach, expressed in the repeated views that 'we got nothing out of ' the united fronts and that the party must come first. Branch meetings and sales are prioritised above all else, and there is a growing tendency to rely on internal meetings rather than to confidently engage with the wider left. Most branch meetings remain small, however, and the majority of members passive.

My perspective has been characterised as nostalgic and my motivation as personal bitterness. Neither is true. Of course the situation with the movements has changed over the past decade. I have always argued that we should build a united front around the recession, which was rejected then adopted in part through the Right to Work conference (although this was effectively a 'united front from below', something we have always criticised in our tradition, and consequently was majority SWP).
This is not the time or place to rehearse these arguments at length. Some people have said to me that such political differences should not need to result in resignation. However there are two other issues here. One is the abandonment of the methods of building pioneered by Tony Cliff, following Lenin and expressed most clearly in his 'Lenin: building the party'. Talk of bending the stick, seizing the key link in the chain or indeed polemical debate is frowned on in the present climate, and is definitely not practiced by the leadership. That it strikes me is a serious retreat from how we have built for all my political lifetime.

The second issue is the internal regime, which has deteriorated. There have been more expulsions and 'offers you can't refuse' in the past year than at any time since the 1970s. Any national meeting now seems to be open season for personal attacks on Left Platform members. The disputes committee session at conference was effectively an attack on me by leading members, even though I had been accused of no offence. The only LP member on the disputes committee was not allowed to attend the session, despite the fact that she had written a minority report.

A leadership often not confident of its political arguments has resorted to gossip, innuendo and moralism. One of the claims about me was that I was 'standing by my man' because I agreed with John Rees politically. I wouldn't insult even a bourgeois politician with that. Again, my record should speak for itself. However, I have felt politically curtailed in recent months: all LP members who submitted journal articles had them rejected; none of us are ever commissioned to write reviews or articles in publications; I was not asked to speak at the women's school, despite having written and spoken more on theoretical questions on women than anyone else in the party. STW was not asked to speak at the RTW conference, despite backing it. Now the leadership attempting to curtail my STW work is a demand too far.

The future

Those are my reasons for resignation. What next? I intend to remain politically active in the movement and as a socialist. It is a critical time for the left, which in my view (and in the view of many other people across the left spectrum) has failed to rise to the challenges posed by the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. The left enters this election weak and divided. The lengthy downturn in class struggle and 13 years of new Labour has taken its toll. The danger for the left is that it becomes a reenactment society. Too much time is spent in nostalgia for the 70s rather than relating to the working class as it actually is, and the concerns that people have.

There are real questions about why the left has been unable to relate to mass movements like the anti war movement without it causing a crisis. There are also questions why at the first setback it retreats to a comfort zone which often cuts it off from the wider movement.

I am very proud of what socialists have achieved in the movements, and especially in STW which is still centrally important politically. I am also proud to be a socialist and have always thought that socialists have to organise and be part of a wider movement. How we do that in the 21st century is an urgent question for us all, if we are not to face the threat of barbarism.

I hope to be part of contributing to some answers on that question. I am sorry that this will no longer be done as part of the SWP. I am still committed to the ideas that I learnt from so many comrades, especially Tony Cliff with whom I worked closely for many years. I hope that I will continue to work with SWP comrades in the wider movements and that many of our differences will be resolved in practice. I hope too that we can work together in a comradely way in order to achieve the goals that we all share.

Lindsey German

[The Feral Underclass]

It's kind of sad really.

[Q]

and its larger than your microscopic group.:cool:

What was that again what you had against ad hominems? :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


What was that again what you had against ad hominems?

I have absolutely nothing against ad hominems, but it seems that you, like so many others on the internet, confuse ad hominem[/I with abuse/personal attacks, when [I]ad hominem is not about abuse/personal attacks:


One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

More here:

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Stick to sectarian attacks, Q, logic is way out of your depth...:cool:

[Crux]

Rosa: The Socialist Party/CWI is "microscopic"? You never cease to amaze me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mayakovsky:


The Socialist Party/CWI is "microscopic"? You never cease to amaze me.

So, how large is your miniscule sect, then?

[Crux]

Mayakovsky:



So, how large is your miniscule sect, then?
Larger than yours.
So have you stopped smoking crack yet?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mayakovsky:


Larger than yours.

I'm not a memeber of the SWP.


So have you stopped smoking crack yet?

I will when you stop sniffing glue...

[Crux]

Mayakovsky:



I'm not a memeber of the SWP.



I will when you stop sniffing glue...
I did not say you were, but good for the SWP I suppose.
Allright I'll stop the troll feeding now. I am still amazed you haven't been banned yet.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mayakovsky:


I did not say you were, but good for the SWP I suppose.

So, what's the reference of the "yours" in this:


Larger than yours.

You:


Allright I'll stop the troll feeding now.

No, don't do that -- you'll die of starvation.


I am still amazed you haven't been banned yet.

On what grounds?:confused:

[AmericanRed]

Gotta love "my dick is bigger than your dick" leftism. As if the larger size of a group necessarily meant its politics were better. Sigh.

[Dragonsign]

secterianism, secterianism. secterianism... nothing new under the sun...

[Q]

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

Glad we agree on the definition. So yes, you employed an ad hominem. I raise a question and you try to undermine it by attacking me, because I'm part of a "microscopic sect". Do you actually understand what an ad hominem attack is yourself? Because you're not showing understanding.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


Glad we agree on the definition. So yes, you employed an ad hominem.

Clearly, we don't. What makes you think we do?


I raise a question and you try to undermine it by attacking me, because I'm part of a "microscopic sect". Do you actually understand what an ad hominem attack is yourself? Because you're not showing understanding.

Where did I argue that you are wrong because you belong to a microsopic sect?

My reference to the diminutive cult to which you cling was purely personal; I did not infer anything from it. [Can you show otherwise?]

So, it is you, who not only cannot read, cannot determine when somthing is or isn't ad hominem.

As I said: stick to sectarian attacks on fellow comrades -- it's your only strength.

[YKTMX]

Speaking to comrades, it's clear that most people agree this was NOT a resigning issue. She is obviously reacting to other events over the last few weeks and months and has taken this opportunity. It's a shame - she's a great socialist and a nice person, too.

Needless to say, the gloating from the sects, disaffected middle class anarchists, CPGB gossip-mongers, MI5 informants, petty bourgeois radicals, Militant fanboys and the rest of the self-righteous shower is neither here nor there. The Party is actually, believe it or not, doing rather better than it has been, and I think we're well placed to play a big part in any radicalisation or struggles that occur after the election. Losing a few members here and there, even "Long Standing" ones, isn't going to affect that.

Mainly because most of us in the Party are more interested in "petty" stuff like, you know, being a part of a communist revolution than the soap opera that seems to fascinate our comrades in other parts of the British "Left".

So, jog on!

[ls]

^ Take a hint from your usertitle.

[Nosotros]

Speaking to comrades, it's clear that most people agree this was NOT a resigning issue. She is obviously reacting to other events over the last few weeks and months and has taken this opportunity. It's a shame - she's a great socialist and a nice person, too.

Needless to say, the gloating from the sects, disaffected middle class anarchists, CPGB gossip-mongers, MI5 informants, petty bourgeois radicals, Militant fanboys and the rest of the self-righteous shower is neither here nor there. The Party is actually, believe it or not, doing rather better than it has been, and I think we're well placed to play a big part in any radicalisation or struggles that occur after the election. Losing a few members here and there, even "Long Standing" ones, isn't going to affect that.

Mainly because most of us in the Party are more interested in "petty" stuff like, you know, being a part of a communist revolution than the soap opera that seems to fascinate our comrades in other parts of the British "Left".

So, jog on!Middle class anarchists? I suppose lindsey german is a chav? Fucking hell!

[RevolverNo9]

The article on Lenin's Tomb has a sensible analysis of what's going on - whatever one's opinion of the SWP, it's quite clear that a dedicated member of many decades, if they retained that spirit, would never resign over this matter in this way, certainly not without at least speaking with the leadership as proposed. It would seem the act was premeditated. This is a real shame, because in so many things Lindsey German was immensely talented. But the sad truth remains that neither she nor John Rees can bear to operate in a world in which they are not in the leadership, an environment they both inhabited for some thirty years, and perhaps felt themselves its truest embodiment. I happen to think that the political differences between the Left Platform and the (overwhelming) majority are more significant than many have said, but the truth again is that the division has never been simply political and strategic - it is a modest movement around fallen leaders.

Having said that, those fantasising about Lindsey joining the the ranks of Labour officialdom are just being vindictive. She made some real mistakes, and I do think this partly down to inhabiting a stratum of the movement that had been left unnaccountable - but she is still far better than that.

TAT:


'To be honest I'm surprised she stayed in as long as she did after Rees was expelled.'

Eh? When was Rees expelled?? Of course the question is now the other way round how many short days remain until Rees follows? Certainly not long!


Q:


That is interesting actually and signifies the kind of tensions involved here. How big could this split go?



Sorry to dissapoint you, but really not much further. The fact is that division in the party is really tiny - the minority / LP have always been a tiny group, and have dwindled pretty consistantly ever since the first flare up over a year ago. Tyneside is an exception where they had / have a serious factional group, including dear Alex Snowdon. We can be sure Rees will follow out, and perhaps Chris Nineham... more than that though its highly unlikely that there'll many more to go. If anything I would hazard that the argument has made more confident the majority of the party in the current orientation, and there is a very positive feeling among many members about getting much of the detrimental methods associated with Rees and German behind us.

[The Feral Underclass]

Eh? When was Rees expelled?? Of course the question is now the other way round how many short days remain until Rees follows? Certainly not long!

My apologies, he wasn't expelled, he was just forced out of his position on the central committee and ostracised.

[The Idler]

If she doesn't join Labour, perhaps her and JR will form a new party based on the Left Platform.

[Q]

If she doesn't join Labour, perhaps her and JR will form a new party based on the Left Platform.

That's what I suspect will happen too. It really depends though on how big the split would be. Also, they have a big say in the STWC, so perhaps they'll use that as a "feeding ground" for this "Left Platform" party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The idler:


If she doesn't join Labour, perhaps her and JR will form a new party based on the Left Platform.

I know Lindsey, and there is no way she'll join labour.

Q:


That's what I suspect will happen too. It really depends though on how big the split would be. Also, they have a big say in the STWC, so perhaps they'll use that as a "feeding ground" for this "Left Platform" party.

Good to see you have returned to your strong point: sectarian speculation.:)

[Saorsa]

Why is John Rees supposed to bear responsibility for the inevitable failure of the SWP's cross-class, popular front fiasco? When it was a project collectively initiated and driven by the party and it's leadership?

[Q]

Why is John Rees supposed to bear responsibility for the inevitable failure of the SWP's cross-class, popular front fiasco? When it was a project collectively initiated and driven by the party and it's leadership?

He's a good scapegoat as he was its biggest defender.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Why is John Rees supposed to bear responsibility for the inevitable failure of the SWP's cross-class, popular front fiasco? When it was a project collectively initiated and driven by the party and it's leadership?

He isn't. They share responsibility, as they have admitted, but he has maintianed the same line -- so he had to go.

[Saorsa]

Hmm, purging or at the very least attempting to silence minority political lines. What does that remind me of... :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Hmm, purging or at the very least attempting to silence minority political lines. What does that remind me of...

Yes, it's so much worse than shooting leading members of the Bolshevik Party, and imprisoning others and their relatives -- as you lot used to do.:rolleyes:

But, it wasn't a purge; he was voted off democratically -- something you ML-ers know nothing about.

[RevolverNo9]

Young Alistair:


Hmm, purging or at the very least attempting to silence minority political lines. What does that remind me of... :rolleyes:

Oh, please. Get a grip on reality. The SWP has no gulags and nobody forced John or Lindsey out the party, in fact the hope was that these good comrades could stay on if at all possible - Lindsey for example was elected by conference to the National Council.

Removing JR and LG from the leadership however is hardly a 'purge' on the scale of the crimes of Stalin or Mao; they continued to organise around a vision of strategy and orientation - which included as integral themselves in the leadership - that was rejected democratically and overwhelmingly by the party's members.

The fact is the 'Left Platform' did not really represent a 'minority political line' in the sense of a tendency within the party of any real organic substance and weight - it was a group that coalasced around an element of the fallen-leadership and their own particular vantage-point. The dispute was qualitiatively different from that between a truely oppositional internal political tendency. What has thrown commentators of the current arguments within the SWP is I think precisely this: that actually the (near-total) majority represents both the current leadership, for sure, but also in a very real way the expression of an opposition against many characteristics of the old regime, represented above all by JR, and LG, despite her talents.



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Idler http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1672542#post1672542)
If she doesn't join Labour, perhaps her and JR will form a new party based on the Left Platform.
That's what I suspect will happen too. It really depends though on how big the split would be. Also, they have a big say in the STWC, so perhaps they'll use that as a "feeding ground" for this "Left Platform" party.

She won't be joining the Labour Party.

How they intend to organise from now on is a bit of mystery but I'm not convinced a formal organisation is on the cards - apart from anything else, there isn't really a 'split' to talk about, despite your fantasies. I imagine they might act as something of a current within StW and perhaps as times goes on will find other initiatives to latch on to. But, really, as RL says, this is all conjecture.

[Lyev]

I joined the Socialist Party of England and Wales a few weeks ago; I get the feelings from this thread and one or two others that the SP, along with the CWI, are thought of as somewhat of a joke by other leftists. Is this true?

[Saorsa]

Yes, it's so much worse than shooting leading members of the Bolshevik Party, and imprisoning others and their relatives -- as you lot used to do.

'You lot'? Ah but of course, to Cliffites (i.e. angry liberals) everyone who isn't a Trotskyist is part of a big Stalinist political mush. Naturally.

If we're talking about imprisoning relatives, Trotsky did that quite enthusiastically when he was in charge of the Red Army to hold the loyalty of former Tsarist officers. I'm not defending this sort of thing being done to the Left Oppositionists and the rest of it, just commenting on the hypocrisy of the passionate Cliffite defence of bourgeois democratic rights for the individual, when Trotsky recognised (quite correctly I might add) that these can and should be ignored wherever necessary.


But, it wasn't a purge; he was voted off democratically -- something you ML-ers know nothing about.

Lolwut? If we're going to get into this game, Trotsky and the Left Opposition were democratically voted down by the CP membership. And the SWP is one of the least democratic organisations I know of. I mean come on, banning Lindsey German from speaking at a STW meeting just because the leadership of the party were being childish about the fact that there were ex-SWP members there? Really?

If we're talking about healthy democratic cultures, the Nepali Maoists are a thousand times more democratic and internally healthy than the SWP is, despite their baby eating 'Stalinism'. That said, this has more to do with the fact that they are an actual Leninist party and the SWP is a sect than it has to do with any superiority of MLM to Trotskyism. For the record of course it is incomparably superior :)


Young Alistair:

I'm struggling to understand exactly what my age has to do with any of this. Probably because I'm so young and stupid of course :rolleyes:

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why is John Rees supposed to bear responsibility for the inevitable failure of the SWP's cross-class, popular front fiasco? When it was a project collectively initiated and driven by the party and it's leadership?
Cos that would mean the SWP leadership collectively admitting that they aren't infallible and that they make mistakes. I think we can both see why this is a ludicrous idea.

I joined the Socialist Party of England and Wales a few weeks ago; I get the feelings from this thread and one or two others that the SP, along with the CWI, are thought of as somewhat of a joke by other leftists. Is this true?
Many leftists think that any organisation that isn't their own is a joke, because they don't have the one correct line. SPEW is ultimately just a Trot group not much better or worse than any of the others; there's a lot of things wrong with it (No2EU and their enthusiastic embrace of screws both come to mind), but they do also have redeeming features, like their willingness to consistently campaign on issues that normal people actually care about, and the fact that they do still have some workplace presence. And ultimately, it's not what other leftists think of you that matters, it's what the working class as a whole thinks.

[cmdrdeathguts]

I joined the Socialist Party of England and Wales a few weeks ago; I get the feelings from this thread and one or two others that the SP, along with the CWI, are thought of as somewhat of a joke by other leftists. Is this true?

SPEW is the second biggest Trotskyoid organisation in Britain; it has fairly good penetration into the unions. My personal experience of SP comrades, working together in the icy political climes of Exeter, has been generally good. It is, however flawed, not a joke. But flawed it is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Alastair:


'You lot'? Ah but of course, to Cliffites (i.e. angry liberals) everyone who isn't a Trotskyist is part of a big Stalinist political mush. Naturally.

Change your ML-er allegiance then. Surely you are proud of your tradition of murdering fellow Bolsheviks?


If we're talking about imprisoning relatives, Trotsky did that quite enthusiastically when he was in charge of the Red Army to hold the loyalty of former Tsarist officers. I'm not defending this sort of thing being done to the Left Oppositionists and the rest of it, just commenting on the hypocrisy of the passionate Cliffite defence of bourgeois democratic rights for the individual, when Trotsky recognised (quite correctly I might add) that these can and should be ignored wherever necessary.

Yes, what happens in a civil war is the same as what happened in the USSR in the 1930s. How stupid of me not to see this!

But, where did Trotsky order the death of most of the leading embers of the Bolshevik party? Or even one?

You say you don't condone this, but I don't see you arguing this in threads where this is brought up.

Instead, you pick on the democratic removal of a comrade from the SWP CC, and call it a purge.

Certainly got your priorities right, haven't you?


If we're going to get into this game, Trotsky and the Left Opposition were democratically voted down by the CP membership.

Fine, and if you accept that then you have no reason to complain if Rees was voted off.


If we're talking about healthy democratic cultures, the Nepali Maoists are a thousand times more democratic and internally healthy than the SWP is, despite their baby eating 'Stalinism'. That said, this has more to do with the fact that they are an actual Leninist party and the SWP is a sect than it has to do with any superiority of MLM to Trotskyism. For the record of course it is incomparably superior

How can you possibly know what the internal regime of the SWP is like?

Answer you can't, so you invent.


And the SWP is one of the least democratic organisations I know of.

Evidence?


I mean come on, banning Lindsey German from speaking at a STW meeting just because the leadership of the party were being childish about the fact that there were ex-SWP members there? Really?

This was something they wished to discuss with her. But she refused. She went against a perspective agreed democratically. She was a member of the CC when others were expelled for breaking party discipline, so she knows what democratic centralism means. She chose not to talk it over and argue her corner, but resigned instead.

And then you have the cheek to fake moral indignation of a 'crime' that palls into insignificance compared to the murder of leading Bolsheviks by the Stalin regime.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ungovernable Mouth:


Cos that would mean the SWP leadership collectively admitting that they aren't infallible and that they make mistakes. I think we can both see why this is a ludicrous idea.

They have already admittted they scewed up.

[Saorsa]

Change your ML-er allegiance then. Surely you are proud of your tradition of murdering fellow Bolsheviks?

Firstly, I don't consider you and your type to be in any way 'Bolshevik'. You're angry liberals. Secondly, just because I am a Marxist-Leninist does not mean I uncritically uphold every single thing every single Marxist-Leninist ever did. Just like you, as a Trotskyist, do not uncritically uphold every single thing every single Trotskyist ever did. I understand this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but stick with it.


Yes, what happens in a civil war is the same as what happened in the USSR in the 1930s. How stupid of me not to see this!

All I was commenting on was the irony of how Cliffites spout all kinds of liberal moralism about the suppression of individual rights, yet in practice the Trotskyist tradition has done and still does do this quite enthusiastically if they feel it necessary. And in the 1930s, the leadership of the CPSU saw themselves as being in a state of very real war with both external and internal enemies, and they took measures that reflected that. I think their analysis with regard to Trotsky and his scattered followers was wrong, and I think the measures they took to deal with the problems they identified were terribly wrong, but let's not pretend that such mistakes are limited to non-Trotskyists. If there have been less historical examples of political repression being carried out by Trotskyists, it's only because Trotskyists have never toppled a capitalist state and attempted to construct a new kind of society, and as a result have been able to keep their hands clean in their ivory tower.

I'm not dismissing all Trotskyists here. I have a hell of a lot of respect for a lot of you guys. But the kind of rubbish that Rosa is spouting here is bloody irritating.


But, where did Trotsky order the death of most of the leading embers of the Bolshevik party? Or even one?

I don't believe he did that Rosa. He happily attacked anarchists though, who are after all fellow revolutionaries and part of the movement against capitalism. Trotsky has the death of thousands of anarchists on his hands. So let's not pretend that Trotskyism is some shining example of revolutionary virtue, hmm?


You say you don't condone this, but I don't see you arguing this in threads where this is brought up.

Largely because I find those threads repetitive and boring in the extreme. I don't tend to post in them at all.


Instead, you pick on the democratic removal of a comrade from the SWP CC, and call it a purge.

Trotsky was democratically voted out of the CPSU. It was still a purge. The SWP is making a scapegoat out of John Rees and his defenders for the RESPECT fiasco. The SWP as a whole is to blame for it, and there has not been any serious analysis of what went wrong and why. It's back to the same old opportunist, social-democratic politics. "Vote for a party we know will happily fuck you over, but do so without illusions! Woopee!"


Certainly got your priorities right, haven't you?

Actually yes, I think I do. I prefer to debate matters of real importance to making revolution in the 21st century, rather than endlessly obsessing over the line struggles last century and whose the nastiest man in the history books. We learn from history, attempt to identify the mistakes and successes, then move on and set about making revolution in the world today. I don't have any interest in wasting my oh so valuable time in the endless Stalin/Trotsky debate. Well, most of the time I don't - I suppose this current debate is an exception.



Fine, and if you accept that then you have no reason to complain if Rees was voted off.

I'm not complaining, I don't give a fuck about a guy like Rees putting forward an opportunist, social-democratic line. I'm just commenting on the hypocrisy of the SWP, whose IST tendency makes a big song and dance about how "oh, we're not like those evil Stalinists, we love democracy and freedom, please like us mr bourgeois liberal". Yet despite this, does not operate in a democratic manner and happily uses top down, bureaucratic methods against members with opinions it doesn't like.


How can you possibly know what the internal regime of the SWP is like?

Answer you can't, so you invent.

Oh come on Rosa. I know I probably shouldn't, but I do expect better from you than this. The "if you weren't there you can't comment on it" line? Really? That argument means that your own statements about, well, pretty much everything should also be discounted. I'm looking forward to you not ever commenting on the repression of Trotskyists by Stalin ever again, because after all you weren't personally involved in what was going on, and thus have no right to comment.


Evidence?


It's been provided many times. I don't feel the need to post it here again. There's already several threads just in the politics section with evidence for this.


This was something they wished to discuss with her. But she refused. She went against a perspective agreed democratically. She was a member of the CC when others were expelled for breaking party discipline, so she knows what democratic centralism means. She chose not to talk it over and argue her corner, but resigned instead.

She was told she couldn't speak at a meeting which the SWP leadership arbitrarily decided was not a 'real' meeting because it wasn't completely under their control.


And then you have the cheek to fake moral indignation of a 'crime' that palls into insignificance compared to the murder of leading Bolsheviks by the Stalin regime.

This is a very strange thing to say. Firstly, I'd love for you to point out exactly where I referred to this as a 'crime'. Secondly, why does the fact that Stalin murdered leading Bolsheviks somehow excuse ever Trotskyist group that has existed since from being criticized? Perhaps you should explain your position more clearly.

[Andy Bowden]

If Lindsey German wants to put forward a political programme, doesn't win support for it and resigns thats one thing and if that was it it would be part and parcel of any political organisation but what seems out of order is the idea that the SWP CC telling a member not to address a STW meeting. Whats it got to do with them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Firstly, I don't consider you and your type to be in any way 'Bolshevik'. You're angry liberals. Secondly, just because I am a Marxist-Leninist does not mean I uncritically uphold every single thing every single Marxist-Leninist ever did. Just like you, as a Trotskyist, do not uncritically uphold every single thing every single Trotskyist ever did. I understand this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but stick with it.

1) You know full well I was referring to the Bolsheviks murdered in the 1930s.

2) The feeling is mutual: we regard you lot as a) serial screw-ups, as I and others have shown in the Mao thread, and b) bourgeois revolutionaries who mouth left-sounding phraseology. The fact that all you lot have ever created is some form of capitalism suggests we are not wrong in this.


All I was commenting on was the irony of how Cliffites spout all kinds of liberal moralism about the suppression of individual rights, yet in practice the Trotskyist tradition has done and still does do this quite enthusiastically if they feel it necessary. And in the 1930s, the leadership of the CPSU saw themselves as being in a state of very real war with both external and internal enemies, and they took measures that reflected that. I think their analysis with regard to Trotsky and his scattered followers was wrong, and I think the measures they took to deal with the problems they identified were terribly wrong, but let's not pretend that such mistakes are limited to non-Trotskyists. If there have been less historical examples of political repression being carried out by Trotskyists, it's only because Trotskyists have never toppled a capitalist state and attempted to construct a new kind of society, and as a result have been able to keep their hands clean in their ivory tower.

Where do 'Cliffites' spout this stuff?

Seems to me that you are the one spouting this liberal stuff here, with your feigned indignation over what has happened to comrades Rees and German.

And the above looks like an attempt to justify the murder of fellow Bolsheviks in the 1930s on trumped-up charges. This shows that your earlier comment was insincere:


Secondly, just because I am a Marxist-Leninist does not mean I uncritically uphold every single thing every single Marxist-Leninist ever did.

You attempt to justify these crimes and then wax indignant about comrade Rees being democratically voted off the SWP CC!

As I said: priorities all wrong.


Actually yes, I think I do. I prefer to debate matters of real importance to making revolution in the 21st century, rather than endlessly obsessing over the line struggles last century and whose the nastiest man in the history books. We learn from history, attempt to identify the mistakes and successes, then move on and set about making revolution in the world today. I don't have any interest in wasting my oh so valuable time in the endless Stalin/Trotsky debate. Well, most of the time I don't - I suppose this current debate is an exception.

Clearly not, as the above shows.


We learn from history, attempt to identify the mistakes and successes, then move on and set about making revolution in the world today. I don't have any interest in wasting my oh so valuable time in the endless Stalin/Trotsky debate. Well, most of the time I don't - I suppose this current debate is an exception

In fact, as the Mao thread shows, you lot are more concerned to bury your heads in the sand on the way to creating yet another capitalist state. And you refuse to be told.


But the kind of rubbish that Rosa is spouting here is bloody irritating.

You only find it 'irritating' because it exposes your rank hypocrisy.


He happily attacked anarchists though, who are after all fellow revolutionaries and part of the movement against capitalism. Trotsky has the death of thousands of anarchists on his hands. So let's not pretend that Trotskyism is some shining example of revolutionary virtue, hmm?

He didn't 'happily' do this, as well you know. One thing he did not do: wipe out practically every leading Bolshevik on trumped up charges.

And, I have only raised this, not to show Trotsky was a saint, but to expose your false indignation over what happened to comrades Rees and German.

You point a grubby finger at us, while several bloody fingers point back at you and the tradition to which you belong.

If you accept that killing fellow comrades is OK in certain circumstances, how can you consistently object when one is voted off a CC democratically? Hardly murder is it?

[Oops italics!]

That's where your blatant hypocrisy is plain for all to see.


Largely because I find those threads repetitive and boring in the extreme. I don't tend to post in them at all.

Ok, where have you once condemned these crimes?


Trotsky was democratically voted out of the CPSU. It was still a purge. The SWP is making a scapegoat out of John Rees and his defenders for the RESPECT fiasco. The SWP as a whole is to blame for it, and there has not been any serious analysis of what went wrong and why. It's back to the same old opportunist, social-democratic politics. "Vote for a party we know will happily fuck you over, but do so without illusions! Woopee!"

And yet you fail to condemn that vote (the one back in the 1920s), but find time to wax indignant about Rees.

And he wasn't 'scapegoated'. He refused to accept the new perspectives, and was voted off at a national gathering.

If he was scapegoated, how come comrade German wasn't voted off at the same time? She was equally 'to blame'. [She later resigned.]


The SWP as a whole is to blame for it, and there has not been any serious analysis of what went wrong and why.

Again, you are guessing. You haven't seen the internal documents.

But still, you are happy to slander the SWP again from a position of total ignorance.

[Oh, no; now it's bold...!]

And you wonder why I call you a sectarian.:lol:

And is this the level of 'analysis' one finds in the ML-tradition these days?


It's back to the same old opportunist, social-democratic politics. "Vote for a party we know will happily fuck you over, but do so without illusions! Woopee!

Impressive stuff, and no mistake...


I'm not complaining, I don't give a fuck about a guy like Rees putting forward an opportunist, social-democratic line. I'm just commenting on the hypocrisy of the SWP, whose IST tendency makes a big song and dance about how "oh, we're not like those evil Stalinists, we love democracy and freedom, please like us mr bourgeois liberal". Yet despite this, does not operate in a democratic manner and happily uses top down, bureaucratic methods against members with opinions it doesn't like.

This certainly looks like a complaint:


I mean come on, banning Lindsey German from speaking at a STW meeting just because the leadership of the party were being childish about the fact that there were ex-SWP members there? Really?

What is it if it isn't a complaint?

Ah, yet more in-depth ML-analysis:


whose IST tendency makes a big song and dance about how "oh, we're not like those evil Stalinists, we love democracy and freedom, please like us mr bourgeois liberal".

Quote me one SWP-er, or IST-er who has ever argued this way. Go on -- put your quotes where your sectarian mouth is -- or withdraw it.

Some cheek anyway; all you lot have ever succeeded in doing is creating yet more members of the bourgeoisie!


Oh come on Rosa. I know I probably shouldn't, but I do expect better from you than this. The "if you weren't there you can't comment on it" line? Really? That argument means that your own statements about, well, pretty much everything should also be discounted. I'm looking forward to you not ever commenting on the repression of Trotskyists by Stalin ever again, because after all you weren't personally involved in what was going on, and thus have no right to comment.

You can certainly comment, but you can't expect to be taken seriously if you are arguing from a position of almost total ignorance.

[Oh no, more italics!]

And, as well you know, my point wasn't: "You weren't there so you can't comment" but this:


How can you possibly know what the internal regime of the SWP is like?

Answer you can't, so you invent.

Hence, it was about what you know not where you were. So, you passed a comment on something you know very little or nothing about. You'll be telling doctors how to do brain surgery next!

Again, you have every right to comment, but then it is up to me to point out how worthless your comment is, since it is based on ignorance, not knowledge.


It's been provided many times. I don't feel the need to post it here again. There's already several threads just in the politics section with evidence for this.

So, that's your 'evidence' -- a load of unproven allegations!

And yet all that these threads contain are the same baseless allegations. If I were to start a dozen or so threads on your tiny party, and filled them with the same sort of unproven allegations, I suppose you'd accept that as proof that your party is whatever I say it is?

We can see from this why you find it easy to believe the lies told about fellow Bolsheviks in the 1930s -- you are a gullible fool.


She was told she couldn't speak at a meeting which the SWP leadership arbitrarily decided was not a 'real' meeting because it wasn't completely under their control

And she was asked to come and discuss it; if they had made a mistake, no problem. If what she (and now you) alleged were true, then she could have defended herself and this could have been cleared up. But she chose not to do that. She could not defend herself, so she resigned.


This is a very strange thing to say. Firstly, I'd love for you to point out exactly where I referred to this as a 'crime'. Secondly, why does the fact that Stalin murdered leading Bolsheviks somehow excuse ever Trotskyist group that has existed since from being criticized? Perhaps you should explain your position more clearly.

It's only 'strange' since you are not used to your hypocrisy being exposed so blatantly.

And, of course, I was using "crime" ironically, since you seem to be more indignant about the democratic removal of Rees than the very real crimes committed against fellow Bolsheviks in the 1930s.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Andy:


If Lindsey German wants to put forward a political programme, doesn't win support for it and resigns thats one thing and if that was it it would be part and parcel of any political organisation but what seems out of order is the idea that the SWP CC telling a member not to address a STW meeting. Whats it got to do with them?

Lindsey was a leading member of the SWP (and on the NC), and thus bound by its collective decisions, committed to obeying the CC -- indeed, this is how she herself operated when she was in the CC, disciplining members who broke discipline.

She was given the opportunity to defend her stance. To that end, she was invited to come and discuss it; if the CC had made a mistake, no problem (I personally know of cases where comrades have won arguments with the CC). If what she (and now you) alleged were true, then she could have defended herself and this could have been cleared up. But she chose not to do that. She could not defend herself, so she resigned.

Where is the big deal in this?

[Lenny Nista]

All I was commenting on was the irony of how Cliffites spout all kinds of liberal moralism about the suppression of individual rights, yet in practice the Trotskyist tradition has done and still does do this quite enthusiastically if they feel it necessary.


When did Trotsky ever talk about "individual rights" in the abstract liberal sense?

He never did; instead he defended the democratic rights of the masses and the democratic gains and organizational independence of the working class, becuase these are a tool to be used in the class struggle. Trotskyists do not fetishize democracy but we don't help our class enemies to suppress the working class in the name of maintaining a "popular front".

Likewise Cliffism is not Trotskyism, they reject the theory of Permanent Revolution, international demcoratic centralism, etc., much like "Marxist Leninists".

[Q]

The split is developing, 42 and counting:


Why we are resigning from SWP: an open letter (http://solomonsmindfield.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-we-are-resigning-from-swp-open.html)

Comments are on this post are heavily moderated. Please feel free to leave personal messages and comments below. There are plenty of blogs where discussions about the SWP and the Left Platform are taking place so I would be grateful if those who want to wade into the debate could visit those sites. Thanks to everyone who has contacted me directly and I look forward to working with everyone in the future: we have a world to win!

The letter - which was emailed to Martin Smith, Socialist Workers Party National Secretary, around lunchtime today - is signed by 42 SWP members. A further 18 people who have resigned from the SWP in recent weeks endorse it too. The full lists of names appear at the foot of this post.

'We are writing to resign from the Socialist Workers Party. We do this with great sadness but the events of recent weeks leave us with little choice.

The immediate reason for our resignation is the attempt by the Central Committee to stop Lindsey German, the convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, from speaking at a Stop the War meeting in Newcastle. This demand was justified by the claim that the meeting was ‘disputed’ or bogus. In fact, it was a properly constituted Stop the War public meeting, agreed at two consecutive Tyneside steering committees. Two SWP members tried to block the meeting because it clashed with a party branch meeting. The Stop the War meeting was a success, but was boycotted by the local SWP. The Central Committee demanded that Lindsey should not go to the meeting and ‘reserved the right’ to take disciplinary action if she attended.

Such sectarian behaviour does enormous damage to the standing of the party in the movement. Unfortunately, it fits into what is now a well-established pattern.
For many years, the SWP has played a dynamic role in the development of mass movements in Britain. The party made an important contribution to the great anti-capitalist mobilisations at the start of the decade, it threw itself into the Stop the War Coalition and was central to the Respect electoral project. These achievements were dependent on an open, non-sectarian approach to joint work with others on the left and a systematic commitment to building the movements.

The SWP leadership has abandoned this approach. The task of building broad, political opposition in every area to the disasters created by neoliberalism and war is now subordinated to short term party building. We believe this undermines both the movements and the prospects of building an open and effective revolutionary current in the British working class.

The most glaring mistake has been the SWP’s refusal to engage with others in shaping a broad left response to the recession, clearly the most pressing task facing the left. Even valuable recent initiatives, like the Right to Work campaign, have minimised the involvement of Labour MPs, union leaders and others who have the capability to mobilise beyond the traditional left.

An authoritarian internal regime has developed as a result of this change in direction. In the run up to the recent party conference, four members of the Left Platform opposition were disciplined, three of them expelled. Since the conference, four of the remaining student comrades at the School of Oriental and African studies in London have been effectively pushed out of the party. A comrade in Newcastle was given an ultimatum to resign from a key position in the local movement in January. He resigned from the party and 10 comrades left in protest at his treatment. The use of disciplinary methods to ‘win’ arguments is completely foreign to the traditions to the SWP and should have no place in the socialist movement.

For these reasons we are now submitting our resignations. We do not do so lightly and we will of course remain active socialists and revolutionaries. We all joined the party because we felt it would make us more effective. Sadly, we now feel that is no longer the case. We have, however, enormous respect for the many fine comrades in the SWP and we regard it as essential to continue to work with SWP members in the unions and campaigns, since we all share a broad agreement on the need to confront recession, war and fascism. We remain convinced of the need for revolutionary socialist organisation. In fact, the need for a radical political alternative and resistance on a massive scale has rarely been more urgent.'

William Alderson
Sian Barrett
Christophe Chataigne
Kate Connelly
Margi Corcoran
Adrian Cousins
Anita de Klerk
Noel Douglas
Reid Dudley-Smith
Mark Ewington
Camille Fairbairn
Sam Fairbairn
Neil Faulkner
Des Freedman
Jo Gough
Elaine Graham-Leigh
Maham Hashmi
Madeline Hennigan
Penny Hicks
James Hilsdon
Feyzi Ismail
Sean Jackson
Naz Massoumi
Narz Massoumi
James Meadway
Brendan Montague
Jackie Mulhalen
Chris Nineham
Samantha Carwenne Oxby
Henry Parkyn-Smith
Dan Poulton
Tia Randall
John Rees
Kirsty Richardson
Steve Sacre
Angela Selleck
Mark D Smith
Guy Taylor
Carole Vincent
John Whearty
Tom Whittaker
Hesham Yafai

The following have resigned in recent weeks and would like to endorse this statement.
Elly Badcock
Will Bowman
Jane Claveley
John Cooper
Adam Cornell
Kevin Deane
Tony Dowling
James Kennell
Dave McAlister
Jack McGlen
Viva Msimang
Matt Richards
Sara El Sheekh
Caitlin Southern
Lindy Syson
Owen Taylor
Mark Tyers
Sonia Van De Bilt

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Q, but in a tiny party like yours, 42 would probably count as a split, but it isn't in the SWP.

But, good to see you back in your comfort zone: rejoicing over the woes of other comrades.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Major split in the CWI?

Well only an idiot would conclude that from this:

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-i-resigned-from-socialist-party.html

But, we have a few such idiots here. Why are they not claiming then that the CWI is splitting?

Clue: Mainly because such idiots are in the CWI, and are rather short-sighted when it comes to their own 'problems'.

[Kassad]

Perhaps this minor split in the Socialist Workers Party can go on to form a more revolutionary Trotskyist party. The International Bolshevik Leninists of the Trotskyist League for the Fourth International, perhaps? Long live socialism!

[Lenny Nista]

Perhaps this minor split in the Socialist Workers Party can go on to form a more revolutionary Trotskyist party. The International Bolshevik Leninists of the Trotskyist League for the Fourth International, perhaps?

I think you've got the wrong characterization. This isn't an "orthodox" split, but an even more opportunist split, whose main criticism is that the SWP is too sectarian towards the forces in Stop the War and RESPECT.

Most likely they will end up in the USec and George Galloway's wing of RESPECT (if he'll have them).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Clue: Mainly because such idiots are in the CWI, and are rather short-sighted when it comes to their own 'problems'.
Rosa - just wondering did you actually read Phil's blog and what was said about the CWI and the SWP (or was it a case of simply looking at the headline).

[Jolly Red Giant]

I think you've got the wrong characterization. This isn't an "orthodox" split, but an even more opportunist split, whose main criticism is that the SWP is too sectarian towards the forces in Stop the War and RESPECT.

Most likely they will end up in the USec and George Galloway's wing of RESPECT (if he'll have them).
The split - and I suspect it will take a little while to see the actual scale of it - is a split to the right. Where they will end up is anyone's guess. I think that the damage that will be done to the SWP (and it could be significant) will more likely come from people dropping out of political activity rather than joining JR and LG.

[The Idler]

As much as I despair at more new left parties formed from ego splits, I can't see any party embracing these resigned members into their inner circle, apart from perhaps Respect. Funny how when the SWP left Respect, I thought that it would be Respect who would struggle to survive.

[Andy Bowden]

Lindsey was a leading member of the SWP (and on the NC), and thus bound by its collective decisions, committed to obeying the CC -- indeed, this is how she herself operated when she was in the CC, disciplining members who broke discipline.

She was given the opportunity to defend her stance. To that end, she was invited to come and discuss it; if the CC had made a mistake, no problem (I personally know of cases where comrades have won arguments with the CC). If what she (and now you) alleged were true, then she could have defended herself and this could have been cleared up. But she chose not to do that. She could not defend herself, so she resigned.

Where is the big deal in this?

Stop The War is supposed to be an organisation independent of the SWP, and Lindsey German was the chair of STWC. It's ridiculous for her not to be able to speak at public meetings on behalf of the organisation. The big deal is, what could the SWP CC possibly oppose about her speaking at a meeting of an organisation in which she holds a leading role? This wasn't a racist, conservative or right wing event, its STW one which the SWP have obviously supported.

Of course the SWP CC may have the power to expel someone for anything if they so wish but it's whether its justified or not thats the question, and Id like to hear from someone in the SWP what was so objectionable about her speaking at an anti-war meeting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Andy:


Stop The War is supposed to be an organisation independent of the SWP, and Lindsey German was the chair of STWC. It's ridiculous for her not to be able to speak at public meetings on behalf of the organisation. The big deal is, what could the SWP CC possibly oppose about her speaking at a meeting of an organisation in which she holds a leading role? This wasn't a racist, conservative or right wing event, its STW one which the SWP have obviously supported.

As a member of a Bolshevik party, Lindsey has already agreed to submit herself to the discipline of the party (a discipline regime of which she was an anthusiatic supporter when others have been called to account, and expelled) which she then found too onerous for her, even though she was invited to talk things over.

Her party membership comes first, as well she knew. Her role in the STWc comes second. If the STW meeting was legitimate, then she would have found it easy to show this to be the case in discusion with the CC. She chose not to avail herself of this invitation. That speaks for itself.


Of course the SWP CC may have the power to expel someone for anything if they so wish but it's whether its justified or not thats the question, and Id like to hear from someone in the SWP what was so objectionable about her speaking at an anti-war meeting.

CC authority over the members is something Lindsey agreed to accept by being a member of the SWP.

And it's not a matter of whether or not this meeting was 'objectionable', but a matter of the perspectives democratically decided upon at a national meeting, to which, as a member of a Bolshevik Party, Lindsey had already agreed to adhere, despite any personal misgivings she might have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kassad:


Perhaps this minor split in the Socialist Workers Party can go on to form a more revolutionary Trotskyist party. The International Bolshevik Leninists of the Trotskyist League for the Fourth International, perhaps? Long live socialism!

Nice, but hackneyed slogans, but if theory and history have taught us anything, it's that this group, if it forms a party (or tendency) will also split, since that is just about the only thing us Trotskyists are good at.

As yours will do too.

So, you can cut out the premature triumphalism. You are only impressing yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jolly Red Fantasist:


Rosa - just wondering did you actually read Phil's blog and what was said about the CWI and the SWP (or was it a case of simply looking at the headline).

And what precisely did I miss?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Major split in the CWI?

Well only an idiot would conclude that from this:

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-i-resigned-from-socialist-party.html

But, we have a few such idiots here. Why are they not claiming then that the CWI is splitting?
Can you tell the difference between 1 and 42, including several prominent leaders? If you genuinely don't think there's a difference between 1 and 42, can you lend me £42? I promise to pay you back.

Andy:



As a member of a Bolshevik party, Lindsey has already agreed to submit herself to the discipline of the party (a discipline regime of which she was an anthusiatic supporter when others have been called to account, and expelled) which she then found too onerous for her, even though she was invited to talk things over.

Her party membership comes first, as well she knew. Her role in the STWc comes second. If the STW meeting was legitimate, then she would have found it easy to show this to be the case in discusion with the CC. She chose not to avail herself of this invitation. That speaks for itself.

And if those Bolsheviks executed after Stalin's trials had been innocent, they would have found it easy to show that to be the case at their trials, eh?

[Saorsa]

Can you tell the difference between 1 and 42, including several prominent leaders? If you genuinely don't think there's a difference between 1 and 42, can you lend me £42? I promise to pay you back.

Classic :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ungovernable Mouth:


Can you tell the difference between 1 and 42, including several prominent leaders? If you genuinely don't think there's a difference between 1 and 42, can you lend me £42? I promise to pay you back.

If I were a millionaire, the difference between these two amounts would be negligible. Given the size of the SWP, 42 is not a split.


And if those Bolsheviks executed after Stalin's trials had been innocent, they would have found it easy to show that to be the case at their trials, eh?

Are you suggesting that comrades Rees and German were threatened with execution?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Classic

Small and relatively small things still amuse relatively small minds, it seems.:(

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If I were a millionaire, the difference between these two amounts would be negligible. Given the size of the SWP, 42 is not a split.

If there were a million members in the SWP, this would be a very different situation. Given that the SWP is a party with a few thousand paper members, which is kept ticking over by the activity of a relatively small number of dedicated activists, 42 including 3 people who were members of the CC at the end of last year, among various other prominent figures like your former student organiser, is clearly a split. What proportion of last year's CC has now left the party?


Are you suggesting that comrades Rees and German were threatened with execution?
Can you read? Not every aspect of an analogy has to match perfectly in order for it to work. I was simply drawing attention to your catch-22 logic of saying that because Lindsey couldn't defend herself that meant she was guilty. And no, using the phrase "catch-22 logic" does not mean that I literally believe that the SWP leadership are going to make Lindsey German fly dangerous bombing missions over Europe.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ungovernable Mouth:


If there were a million members in the SWP, this would be a very different situation. Given that the SWP is a party with a few thousand paper members, which is kept ticking over by the activity of a relatively small number of dedicated activists, 42 including 3 people who were members of the CC at the end of last year, among various other prominent figures like your former student organiser, is clearly a split. What proportion of last year's CC has now left the part

The membership of the SWP is in excess of 4000, so 42 is less than 1%. Once more, a 1% loss is no 'split'.


which is kept ticking over by the activity of a relatively small number of dedicated activists

I'd like to see your proof of this.


Can you read?

And what is the point of asking that if you think I can't?


Not every aspect of an analogy has to match perfectly in order for it to work. I was simply drawing attention to your catch-22 logic of saying that because Lindsey couldn't defend herself that meant she was guilty. And no, using the phrase "catch-22 logic" does not mean that I literally believe that the SWP leadership are going to make Lindsey German fly dangerous bombing missions over Europe.

Where did I say she was guilty?

I happen to know Lindsey personally; she is well able to defend her corner, and better than most. If she chose not to then either she couldn't or wouldn't.

If the former, then her case was lost.

If the latter, then she was right to resign.

Either way, the CC was not to blame.

[The Idler]

What proportion of the CC have resigned? Also is there a different "National Committee"? The CPGB mentioned one in their podcast (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2010/02/15/lindsey-germans-resignation-from-the-swp/). Also how will the resignations be covered in Socialist Worker?

[Crux]

Jolly Red Fantasist:



And what precisely did I miss?
I am sorry I ever said you should be banned. You are unintentional comedic gold. And you will most likely never understand why.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The membership of the SWP is in excess of 4000, so 42 is less than 1%. Once more, a 1% loss is no 'split'.
What proportion of those 4000 are actually active?


I'd like to see your proof of this.

The SWP employs several full-time paid staff. Presumably these people contribute a lot more to the organisation than normal unpaid members do, otherwise the SWP is severely ripping itself off.

[Crux]

Wasn't there recently a split in the irish SWP as well?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ungovernable Mouth:


What proportion of those 4000 are actually active?

No idea. I'm not a member of the SWP.


The SWP employs several full-time paid staff. Presumably these people contribute a lot more to the organisation than normal unpaid members do, otherwise the SWP is severely ripping itself off.

So?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MayaSomething:


I am sorry I ever said you should be banned. You are unintentional comedic gold. And you will most likely never understand why.

Not too good at putting an argument together, are you?

Still, you seem not to mind advertising that fact by posting such trivial and trollish comments for all to see.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The Idler:


What proportion of the CC have resigned?

No idea, I'm not in the SWP.


Also is there a different "National Committee"?

Not too sure what you mean.


The CPGB mentioned one in their podcast. Also how will the resignations be covered in Socialist Worker?

We'll have to wait and see.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

MayaSomething:

Not too good at putting an argument together, are you?

Still, you seem not to mind advertising that fact by posting such trivial and trollish comments for all to see.
I love the fact that you post this while a) compulsively misquoting people's usernames in a wacky way, because everyone knows that making someone else's name sound a bit silly is the highest form of wit, and b) not actually being able to think of a good pun for Mayakovsky so you just go with "MayaSomething". Not trivial or trollish at all.

[Klashnekov]

Andy:



As a member of a Bolshevik party, Lindsey has already agreed to submit herself to the discipline of the party (a discipline regime of which she was an anthusiatic supporter when others have been called to account, and expelled) which she then found too onerous for her, even though she was invited to talk things over.


I'm sorry but the SWP is far from a Bolshevik Party...

Beg for members much?

[Q]

On a note of fact on membership, quoted from the pre-conference Internal Bulletin number 1 last year: “At the moment 2,900 people, or 49% of SWP members, pay regular subs. This is too low …”

By all Bolshevik standards this means the SWP has, at tops, 2900 members. So, where does this inflated "4000" come from Rosa blathers about? From the same Bulletin: “At present there are 5,800 registered members of the SWP. A registered member is a comrade who states that they wish to be a member of the organisation. Anyone who fails to pay subs or does not make contact to indicate they wish to continue to be a member after two years is removed from our registered members list and placed on our unregistered list of members.”

So "membership" of the SWP considered all people that say want to be a member and unless they don't pay subs for two years, they'll remain on the "registered members" list, after which they still remain some kind of member still, but an "unregistered" one.

So, what does this mean for activity, another key value in the Bolshevik type of party? To illustrate the extent of activity, from the same document again: “… in West London there are 220 members on paper, of which only 12 have organised themselves properly, in branch and district. It should come as no surprise then that all the party’s work, everything important, goes through these 12 organised comrades.”

Let us say this level of activity, 5,45%, is below average and say that the rest of the party is more active, say 10%. This means that there are about 600 members (10% of 5800) in the SWP, according to the Bolshevik definition.

So, in the context of this split: It stands to reason that those who have splitted away have been involved directly in the fights and indeed we see quite a few prominent names on the list. So, this would mean that around 10% of the membership - according to the Bolshevik definition - have splitted away, so far. Quite a number.

[Benjamin Hill]

Louis Proyect's take on the split:


Lindsey German resigns from the SWP (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/lindsey-german-resigns-from-the-swp/)

Filed under: sectarianism (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/sectarianism/) — louisproyect @ 6:23 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2008/02/25/lindsey_german203_203x152.jpg (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2008/02/25/lindsey_german203_203x152.jpg)
Lindsey German

As many of you know the British SWP is being roiled by a series of resignations, including some very high-profile members like Lindsey German, a 37 year (!) veteran and leader of their antiwar work. German, John Rees and a number of other resignees were supporters of the Left Platform faction that fought for their perspective during the 2008 SWP convention. I have written about the fight in a series of posts here:

The fight in the SWP, part one (Neil Davidson) (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/the-fight-in-the-swp/)
The fight in the SWP, part two (John Rees) (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/the-fight-in-the-swp-part-two/)
The fight in the SWP, part three (Chris Harman) (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/the-fight-in-the-swp-part-three-chris-harman/)
The fight in the SWP, part four (Alex Callinicos) (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/the-fight-in-the-swp-part-4-alex-callinicos/)
The fight in the SWP, part five (Lindsey German) (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-fight-in-the-swp-part-five-lindsey-german/)
The fight in the SWP, conclusion (What kind of party we need) (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/the-fight-in-the-swp-conclusion-what-kind-of-party-we-need/)

My commentary on the faction fight was not so much about the specific differences since I avoid the “advice from Coyoacan” stance so familiar to organized Trotskyism, not that anybody would listen to my advice to begin with.

I am far more interested in how the split (that is what it amounts to) reflects on the ongoing problem of building “Leninist parties” and more specifically that of “democratic centralism”. Lindsey German’s resignation was a classic example of imposing “party discipline” on a member. While there are conflicting versions of what took place, I tend to agree with Richard Seymour that—strictly speaking—the SWP was in its rights to ask her not to attend a meeting of the Stop the War Committee, a coalition that she has led for about a decade: “Lindsey, as a former central committee member, would be well used to the expectation that members accept the decisions of its elected bodies.” So rather than accepting the instructions of the “elected bodies”, she resigned and went ahead to attend the meeting.

During the great purge of the American SWP in the early 1980s, one leading member named Diane Feeley was expelled for participating in planning meetings for an International Women’s Day action to which she had been assigned by the party. Unlike the British SWP, the split was characterized by expulsions rather than resignations. The Jack Barnes leadership had put so many constraints on the minority faction, including their duties in the mass movement, that it was almost inevitable that some would “break discipline” and get the boot. When you create an obstacle course, there will inevitably be accidents.

The Lindsey German/John Rees faction has tried to characterize the split in terms of united front advocates versus a stodgy, inward-looking retreat from the mass movement. In an open letter (http://solomonsmindfield.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-we-are-resigning-from-swp-open.html) signed by 50 other resignees, we get this take on things:

For many years, the SWP has played a dynamic role in the development of mass movements in Britain. The party made an important contribution to the great anti-capitalist mobilisations at the start of the decade, it threw itself into the Stop the War Coalition and was central to the Respect electoral project. These achievements were dependent on an open, non-sectarian approach to joint work with others on the left and a systematic commitment to building the movements.

The SWP leadership has abandoned this approach. The task of building broad, political opposition in every area to the disasters created by neoliberalism and war is now subordinated to short term party building. We believe this undermines both the movements and the prospects of building an open and effective revolutionary current in the British working class.

The most glaring mistake has been the SWP’s refusal to engage with others in shaping a broad left response to the recession, clearly the most pressing task facing the left. Even valuable recent initiatives, like the Right to Work campaign, have minimised the involvement of Labour MPs, union leaders and others who have the capability to mobilise beyond the traditional left.

With all due respect to these comrades, I don’t think it is accurate to describe the SWP’s approach as non-sectarian for in the final analysis the SWP is and was a sect. It might have been a very successful sect, but nonetheless that is what it was. Lindsey German was a believer in the “united front” approach in politics, which led to the disaster in Respect and an ensuing crisis at the heart of the current dispute.

For those trained in Leninist and, more specifically, Trotskyist politics the united front is an arrangement in which the “vanguard” unites with reformists around a single issue like withdrawal from Iraq or opposing a fascist demonstration. While it is capable of producing beneficial results, as was the case in the American antiwar movement, it is also a very good way to antagonize other radicals who are not exactly “reformists” according to the formula. It means that in mass movement meetings, groups like the SWP come with their own agenda worked out in advance and can never be persuaded by argument to adopt proposals that differ from their party leadership. This notion of “democratic centralism” has little to do with the operation of the Bolshevik Party which carried out its debates in public. If the British SWP functioned like the Bolsheviks, you would see open debates between Lindsey German and the party leaders over antiwar perspectives in the party press.

Of course, the SWP would never permit this kind of transparency since it would be a confession that it was some kind of petite-bourgeois “talk shop” or some such thing. In reality, deep differences in a group like the SWP will always lead to splits because the internal regime is so brittle. If Britain ever gave rise to a genuine vanguard, the differences would be much more profound than they are in this little dust-up over whether Lindsey should have gone to that meeting or not.

For example, if you read John Reed’s “Ten Days that Shook the World”, you will learn that Bolshevik leaders spoke out against closing the counter-revolutionary press in 1917, after the seizure of power. They didn’t do this in closed central committee meetings but in front of the masses. Reed referred to divided votes among party members over key questions such as whether to expropriate the bourgeois press. At a November 17th 1917 mass meeting, Lenin called for the confiscation of the capitalist newspapers. Reed quotes him: “If the first revolution had the right to suppress the Monarchist papers, then we have the right to suppress the bourgeois press.” He continued: “Then the vote. The resolution of Larin and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries was defeated by 31 to 22; the Lenin motion was carried by 34 to 24. Among the minority were the Bolsheviki Riazanov and Lozovsky, who declared that it was impossible for them to vote against any restriction on the freedom of the press.”

Given the enormous appetite that our latter-day avatars of V.I. Lenin have for strict control over the membership, both ideologically and in terms of activity, this scenario seems as plausible as Richard Seymour taking a leave of absence from the SWP in order to spend a year in Cuba learning about the revolution. It is just not in their culture.

The SWP, like every other sect that originated out of Leon Trotsky’s expulsion from the Soviet Union, has a small proprietor’s attitude toward politics. Its analysis is a kind of intellectual property that differentiates it from the rest of the left, in this case being how the USSR became “state capitalist”. It combines this intellectual property with hard work in the mass movement, even if it antagonizes most of the movement through its propensity to carry out fait accompli. The net result is to foster the growth of what they call a cadre that has many of the characteristics of a priesthood. Things go swimmingly well as long as there is wind in the sails of the group, but the first time the winds die down the group goes into a crisis and faces schisms of one sort or another. I saw this happen in the American SWP and am said to see it happening to their British namesake. I doubt that the British SWP will ever assume the Hindenberg Dirigible disaster proportions of the American sect, but I also doubt that they will ever become much larger than they are now. Britain, and every other country in the world, needs a true vanguard party and the first step in making that happen is to dump the “Leninist” baggage that keeps such groups so tiny and prone to splits.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Of course, Louis is an anti-Bolshevik, meaning his views are both predicatable and partizan.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q (again, in his comfort zone, in sectarian hog heaven):


On a note of fact on membership, quoted from the pre-conference Internal Bulletin number 1 last year: “At the moment 2,900 people, or 49% of SWP members, pay regular subs. This is too low …”

By all Bolshevik standards this means the SWP has, at tops, 2900 members. So, where does this inflated "4000" come from Rosa blathers about? From the same Bulletin: “At present there are 5,800 registered members of the SWP. A registered member is a comrade who states that they wish to be a member of the organisation. Anyone who fails to pay subs or does not make contact to indicate they wish to continue to be a member after two years is removed from our registered members list and placed on our unregistered list of members.”

As the above shows, it's a mistake to assume that regular subs payers are the only members.

Unfortunately, Q, you are an expert at making just such mistakes.


So "membership" of the SWP considered all people that say want to be a member and unless they don't pay subs for two years, they'll remain on the "registered members" list, after which they still remain some kind of member still, but an "unregistered" one.

Are you suggestimg the SWP enroll those who do not want to be members?http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif


So, what does this mean for activity, another key value in the Bolshevik type of party? To illustrate the extent of activity, from the same document again: “… in West London there are 220 members on paper, of which only 12 have organised themselves properly, in branch and district. It should come as no surprise then that all the party’s work, everything important, goes through these 12 organised comrades.”

So, from one area (containing approximately 4% of the membership of the SWP) you extroplate to the whole country. That sounds reasonable.


Let us say this level of activity, 5,45%, is below average and say that the rest of the party is more active, say 10%. This means that there are about 600 members (10% of 5800) in the SWP, according to the Bolshevik definition.

On what do you base these wild assumptions?


So, in the context of this split: It stands to reason that those who have splitted away have been involved directly in the fights and indeed we see quite a few prominent names on the list. So, this would mean that around 10% of the membership - according to the Bolshevik definition - have splitted away, so far. Quite a number.

The real context is your wild extrapolations and unsupported assumptions.

Are you intent on being nominated Sectarian of the Year?

You get my vote...

[whore]

i don't know what the big deal is. a very small political party (less than 6000 members by any count) loses less than 50 members. no matter how influential those members are, i can't see it being the death call for the party, or for the broader left project.

all quotes and numbers from:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-05125.pdf
that's a pdf. get your pdf viewer here (http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html).

The latest figures show the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat
parties have memberships of approximately 250,000, 166,000 and 60,000 respectively.

even the greens have a bigger membership! (8000), as do the UK IP (14600), and the scots national party (15100)


are the swp even a revolutionary party? i guess not, as they support people in elections and form alliances with reactionary elements of society. never mind.

anyway, it's a shame when people split, but i doubt the swp are going to lead us to revolution anyway, so it's hardly the end of the world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Whore:


are the swp even a revolutionary party? i guess not, as they support people in elections and form alliances with reactionary elements of society. never mind.

1) Are they supposed to support non-people in elections? On which planet are these being held?

2) What alliance with what 'reactionary elements' did they form?

Finally, you seem to have an odd idea what a revolutionary party is supposed to do; abstain from everything perhaps?

[whore]

Whore:

1) Are they supposed to support non-people in elections? On which planet are these being held?
being revolutionary, shouldn't they not support anyone (or anything) in national elections at all? does not supporting a party or person in an election for parliament sort of indicate that they aren't serious about revolution?


2) What alliance with what 'reactionary elements' did they form?
perhaps "reactionary" is too strong a word. but certainly reformist and status quoist. (swp was a member of the respect group for example...)

Finally, you seem to have an odd idea what a revolutionary party is supposed to do; abstain from everything perhaps?
hardly. you can't claim that from two comments.

no, a "revolutionary party" is one that actually agitates for revolution and against parliamentary politics. because, you know, politics is a sham! instead of saying "vote for us" or "vote for them" (whether "them" is the democrats in the usa or the labour party in britain), a revolutionary party will say "don't vote, revolt!" and "don't vote, take control of your own lives!" (with a decent explanation behind the sloganering).

---

want to address the other comments i made in my post? such as whether or not anyone should care about this minor split in this minor party?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Are you suggestimg the SWP enroll those who do not want to be members?http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif
If you're satire, you're really good. You actually had me going there. Well done.


So, from one area (containing approximately 4% of the membership of the SWP) you extroplate to the whole country. That sounds reasonable.

On what do you base these wild assumptions?

Except that he adjusted and allowed for the possibility that the level of activity in this one area might be twice as low as it is in the rest of the country. And he bases these wild assumptions on what it said in the IB, I wouldn't have thought that bit would be hard to work out.

Whore:



1) Are they supposed to support non-people in elections?
No, they're supposed to take a serious look at what electoralism has managed to achieve. Not a great deal. But I'm sure TUSC will be completely different to Respect and the Socialist Alliance and the Left Alternative and the Left List and NO2EU. This time I'm sure everything will have completely changed.

2) What alliance with what 'reactionary elements' did they form?
Respect; UAF; the list could go on. Or is Margaret Hodge (http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=100214) not a reactionary element any more? You know, this Margaret Hodge (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11627)?

Finally, you seem to have an odd idea what a revolutionary party is supposed to do; abstain from everything perhaps?
Electoralism and making alliances with racist reactionary politicians =/= everything.

[Benjamin Hill]

The Weekly Worker published a somewhat cynical article on this affair (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003809):


Left Platform throws in the towel

Following the departure of John Rees, Lindsey German and all their supporters from the Socialist Workers Party, lessons must be learnt, says Peter Manson

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/images/1003809.jpg

The collective resignation letter of John Rees, Chris Nineham, and other Left Platform members on February 16 came as no surprise to watchers of internal events at PO box 42184.

Lindsey German solemnly told the Socialist Workers Party’s annual conference in January that the LP would dissolve. That she accepted the result of the debates, votes and elections. That she and her comrades would remain loyal members. Despite those promises, it is now clear that LP leader John Rees was looking for a quick exit strategy following his faction’s hammering - LP’s perspectives document received a humiliating 17 votes from around 500 delegates.

Comrade German had managed to squeeze onto the 50-strong national committee in 49th place. In contrast comrade Rees did not even dare stand. Whereas comrade German retains a certain popularity amongst the SWP’s rank and file, as shown by the 124 votes she gained, Rees is widely and actively disliked because of his perceived arrogance - a factor which makes him an easy scapegoat for the Respect disaster.

Members of a principled faction, confident that the truth was on their side and that they would eventually be proved correct, would have stayed and fought. After all, differences between the SWP’s central committee and the LP were always those of nuance - certainly not a splitting matter. However, comrades Rees and German had no stomach for continuing their derisory internal campaign. Instead they walked and gave the leadership of Martin Smith and Alex Callinicos the easiest of victories.

The CC was not exactly keen to make its peace with the Reesites. In fact, just after conference was the ideal time to launch another provocation against the LP. Having gerrymandered the SWP’s conference, and following what it regarded as a successful Right to Work talking shop last month, the CC calculated that its largely passive membership would be unlikely to overly object to another bureaucratic move to oust the demoralised LP opposition.

First it targeted the Left Platform in the North East, demanding, on February 3, that Tony Dowling step down from his position as Tyneside secretary of the National Shop Stewards Network for allegedly bureaucratic behaviour. Comrade Dowling immediately resigned from the SWP and was followed straightaway by 10 of his local comrades. An easy round for the CC.

What happened next was even more unexacting for the leadership. Comrades Dowling and Alex Snowdon, an LP comrade expelled for email ‘thought crime’ prior to the January conference, organised a Stop the War Coalition meeting in Newcastle. Not unnaturally, they invited Lindsey German to speak. The CC considered this intolerable, a provocation. In the pub afterwards there might be a factional get-together - and we can’t have that, can we?

National secretary Martin Smith emailed comrade German ‘requesting’ her not go to. Asking her to “meet with members of the CC at the earliest possible opportunity” - previous victims of the SWP’s disciplinary steamroller will recognise the method. Incredibly, however, that was enough for comrade German to give up on her 37 years of membership. The only surprise is that it took another six days for the remaining 42 LP comrades to follow her - perhaps comrade Rees had a bit of difficulty getting hold of one or two of them.

It was remarkably quick and simple from the CC viewpoint. A couple of minor bureaucratic jabs and it was all over - the entire Left Platform gone in less than a fortnight.

Comrade German tries to justify herself in her open letter, ‘Why I resigned from the SWP’. As is the way nowadays, it is readily available on the internet. She writes: “I have always been clear that if political differences between myself and the leadership brought about a conflict like this, I would resign rather than being expelled from an organisation which I have helped to build for more than 37 years, for most of which time I was part of the leadership.”

But why did you make that clear, Lindsey? Is it a point of principle for people subject to a little bit of bureaucratic bullying to instantly surrender rather than attempt to defend their record and go onto the offensive? Is it because you had done so much to produce that bullying regime that was now turning on you that you could not contemplate any other course?

Normal to split

Alex Snowdon attempts to dodge such arguments in his blog: “Almost all the major figures in the revolutionary Marxist tradition … have been members of factions at some time; all of them have also split from organisations. It is just silly to have a hysterical reaction to such things, as if it is treachery or some awful sin. In most countries, at most times, it is the norm (not the exception) on the revolutionary left ...

“When there are substantial differences - which we definitely have now - it is reasonable for someone to take the step Lindsey has taken. This is especially true when the internal culture has corroded so badly” (luna17activist.blogspot.com (http://luna17activist.blogspot.com/)).

Unfortunately he is right - it has been “the norm (not the exception) on the revolutionary left” for comrades who are members of confessional sects to split at the drop of a hat. He is also correct to point out that this is usually connected with the internal regime operated by these groups. However, comrade Snowdon seems some way from the realisation that it is the “internal culture” of bureaucratic centralism - where minorities are publicly gagged, prevented from coming together to fight for change and as a consequence cannot hope to become the majority - that understandably leads them to the conclusion that they have no alternative. In other words, the “internal culture” that the SWP has always operated.

What about the issue over which comrade German had a difference with the CC - whether or not she should address an STWC meeting? She says: “For the convenor of Stop the War to be stopped from speaking at a STW meeting by the party leadership would not be understood or agreed in the wider movement and I thought it would damage the SWP in the movement locally and nationally.”

Let us leave aside the comrade’s concern not to “damage the SWP in the movement” - the widely-publicised resignation of that organisation’s only public figure would not do that, would it? But why not rebel against the ‘request’ to pull out of this particular meeting? The reasons given by the leadership for wanting her to do so were totally spurious. From there it should have been possible to move to a generalised counteroffensive.

Comrade German makes a number of other points which hardly justify her resignation either. She says of Respect: “Its failure meant that honest accounting on this question was impossible, drowned in a frenzy of personal abuse against John Rees for decisions which had been taken collectively.” Not true. There could have been an honest accounting for the Respect debacle. However, it is true that the entire leadership, including comrades Smith and Callinicos, voted for and publicly supported the Respect turn and, as far as I know, went along with comrade Rees over the falling-out with George Galloway and subsequent split, which the SWP cynically provoked.

It is true that comrade Rees must bear prime responsibility. He was the main driver of this disastrous embrace of classic popular frontism. But the rest of the CC should surely take their part of the blame for failing to oppose such dreadful opportunism. Equally to the point, neither side has made any meaningful criticism of the Respect turn - forming a joint party with the Muslim Association of Britain, George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley and a layer of Muslim businessmen.

Comrade German writes: “The second issue is the internal regime, which has deteriorated. There have been more expulsions and ‘offers you can’t refuse’ in the past year than at any time since the 1970s. Any national meeting now seems to be open season for personal attacks on Left Platform members.”

Whether the regime has “deteriorated” I cannot say. But from where I am it seems to be dominated by exactly the same bureaucratic culture of intolerance that it has exhibited from the beginning. Disciplinary moves, including expulsion, for members who dissent has been a perfectly normal feature of the SWP - including under the Rees-German leadership. The same goes for vitriolic attacks on comrades who go against the leadership - John Molyneux has been making this point for some years.

It is also tempting to say, ‘What else is new?’ in response to comrade German’s next point: “… I have felt politically curtailed in recent months: all LP members who submitted journal articles had them rejected; none of us are ever commissioned to write reviews or articles in publications; I was not asked to speak at the women’s school, despite having written and spoken more on theoretical questions on women than anyone else in the party.”

Comrade German really ought to look back over her 37 years of membership, most of which on the leadership, and try to weigh up honestly which of the above practices are a real departure from what went on when comrades Tony Cliff and John Rees were at the helm. Not very many, I would have thought.

Desperate stuff

The document entitled ‘Why we are resigning from SWP: an open letter’ signed by 42 LP comrades (apart from John Rees and former CC member Chris Nineham, they include STWC worker Elaine Graham-Leigh, the already suspended James Meadway and Adrian Cousins of Counterfire website fame) makes similar points.

Apparently “the events of recent weeks leave us with little choice” but to quit - although the 42 also cite the CC’s “request” to comrade German not to speak in Newcastle as the “immediate reason”.

But they also make more than comrade German of the current CC’s alleged turn away from the “open, non-sectarian approach to joint work with others on the left and a systematic commitment to building the movements” which they claim was the main feature of the Rees regime: “The SWP leadership has abandoned this approach. The task of building broad, political opposition in every area to the disasters created by neoliberalism and war is now subordinated to short-term party-building.

“The most glaring mistake has been the SWP’s refusal to engage with others in shaping a broad left response to the recession ... Even valuable recent initiatives, like the Right to Work campaign, have minimised the involvement of Labour MPs, union leaders and others who have the capability to mobilise beyond the traditional left.”

To be honest, this is pretty desperate stuff. RTW does not involve sufficient Labour MPs and union leaders? And apparently the current “authoritarian internal regime” has developed “as a result of this change in direction” (my emphasis). Surely the development of an “authoritarian internal regime” must have a cause more profound than a switch of emphasis (if there has been one) in relation to so-called ‘united fronts’. A more likely candidate for the SWP’s stifling culture is its combination of confessional sectarianism and programmeless opportunism - whereby the leadership is free to expel dissidents on the narrowest of grounds and at the same time pursue any quick-fix manoeuvre it chooses.

Opportunism certainly thrives in the absence of accountability (including to a programme) and a membership which can freely and openly criticise. In that sense both the Cliff and the Rees regimes were “authoritarian” too (in this context, the statement that “The use of disciplinary methods to ‘win’ arguments is completely foreign to the traditions of the SWP and should have no place in the socialist movement” really made me laugh).

What will comrades Rees and German do now? Well, after his Timeline series on political history, I hear the Islam Channel has commissioned a follow-up from comrade Rees. Both he and comrade German have the occasional TV and radio appearance to their credit and are clearly eyeing the possibility of becoming media personalities.

Of course, Left Platform comrades are adamant that “we will, of course, remain active socialists and revolutionaries.” They even declare themselves still “convinced of the need for revolutionary socialist organisation”.

But how do they intend to put that into practice? By forming yet another sect? It hardly seems likely. The sad truth is that, despite the name of their faction, the whole trajectory of comrades Rees and German has been to movementism.

Despite that, because they, and their Left Platform comrades, pledge themselves to building a “revolutionary socialist organisation” we shall hold out the hand of friendship, as we do to all who say they are committed to left unity.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

being revolutionary, shouldn't they not support anyone (or anything) in national elections at all? does not supporting a party or person in an election for parliament sort of indicate that they aren't serious about revolution?
Not just voting for anyone, voting for the same party that's been attacking the working class continuously for more than a decade now (http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20198).

Our vote for Labour is not because we believe the party will act better than the Tories in government. We, and many workers, vote Labour in spite of the party’s record in government, not because of it.
If you can manage to make that make any kind of sense at all, you deserve a medal.



perhaps "reactionary" is too strong a word. but certainly reformist and status quoist. (swp was a member of the respect group for example...)

Nah, it's precisely the right word. Unite Against Fascism is a group the SWP are heavily involved in; this guy is a member (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Taylor). Nuff said.


want to address the other comments i made in my post? such as whether or not anyone should care about this minor split in this minor party?
It might be a minor party, but it's still the biggest "revolutionary" party in the UK. It was completely central to the anti-Iraq war movement, for example. For a lot of people, it's their first point of contact with socialist politics. Most of them leave pretty quickly due to the strain of trying to work out how being a revolutionary socialist means voting for the government; some of them go on to do useful stuff instead, a lot just drop out of socialism altogether. If this split means that the situation might change, then that's legitimately interesting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Whore:


being revolutionary, shouldn't they not support anyone (or anything) in national elections at all? does not supporting a party or person in an election for parliament sort of indicate that they aren't serious about revolution?

This is not what revolutionaries with whom I agree have ever argued. The point is not to have any illusions in them.


perhaps "reactionary" is too strong a word. but certainly reformist and status quoist. (swp was a member of the respect group for example...)

There is nothing wrong with a United Front, so long as you maintain your political independence. The SWP leadership now admit they leant a little too far away from this.


no, a "revolutionary party" is one that actually agitates for revolution and against parliamentary politics. because, you know, politics is a sham! instead of saying "vote for us" or "vote for them" (whether "them" is the democrats in the usa or the labour party in britain), a revolutionary party will say "don't vote, revolt!" and "don't vote, take control of your own lives!" (with a decent explanation behind the sloganering).

This is an ultra-left stance which has nothing to do with Leninism. If you want to debate that, this thread is no place to do it.


want to address the other comments i made in my post? such as whether or not anyone should care about this minor split in this minor party?

Not really; sorry!:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TUF:


Except that he adjusted and allowed for the possibility that the level of activity in this one area might be twice as low as it is in the rest of the country. And he bases these wild assumptions on what it said in the IB, I wouldn't have thought that bit would be hard to work out.

I fail to see how this is a safe extropolation. Perhaps you can enlighten me?


No, they're supposed to take a serious look at what electoralism has managed to achieve. Not a great deal. But I'm sure TUSC will be completely different to Respect and the Socialist Alliance and the Left Alternative and the Left List and NO2EU. This time I'm sure everything will have completely changed.

The SWP has never had any illusions about what elections can acheive, so the above comment should be addressed to those who have.

And, good luck with the TUSC.:)


Respect; UAF; the list could go on. Or is Margaret Hodge not a reactionary element any more? You know, this Margaret Hodge?

It wasn't the 'reactionary' I was questioning, but the alleged 'alliance'; the SWP, as far as I know, have entered no 'alliances'. The closest they have come is when they were a part of the Socialist Alliance, but this was an alliance in name only.


Electoralism and making alliances with racist reactionary politicians =/= everything.

Er.., what?:confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Benjamin, thanks for that, I wondered how long it would be until someone posted an article from the Weekly Gossip Rag.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A defense of the SWP in the face of some recent (ill-informed) attacks:

http://www.marxmail.org/msg73159.html

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/19/in-defence-of-the-swp/

[ls]

It wasn't the 'reactionary' I was questioning, but the alleged 'alliance'; the SWP, as far as I know, have entered no 'alliances'. The closest they have come is when they were a part of the Socialist Alliance, but this was an alliance in name only.

This is like saying black is white.. yeah it broke up nastily exposing the clear differences between the two organisations, but nonetheless the SWP and RESPECT were very close for a time, I didn't think this was disputable.

[Q]

I didn't think this was disputable.
Let me explain this erratic behaviour of Rosa. She has on many occasions displayed that critique on the SWP (and IMT, perhaps other organisations too) is by very definition unacceptable for her. You may make tons of reasonable arguments, throw in obvious facts and undermine the "logic" she is using, she'll come up with something new and uses it to denounce you. No doubt she has replied to my post in which I destroyed her "this is an irrelevant split as the SWP has 4000+ members" argument in the same manner. I for one don't waste my energy on her anymore and I would suggest everyone to do the same. She is the epitome of a dishonest troll.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course, Louis is an anti-Bolshevik, meaning his views are both predicatable and partizan.

How is he an "anti-Bolshevik"? Or are you simply pissed that:

A) He called the Fourth International and Trotskyism a "sectarian mistake";
B) He seems to be somewhat into the Kautsky Revival...

???

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IS:


This is like saying black is white.. yeah it broke up nastily exposing the clear differences between the two organisations, but nonetheless the SWP and RESPECT were very close for a time, I didn't think this was disputable.

Er..., aaaannnnd?:confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The High Priest of Sectariana:


Let me explain this erratic behaviour of Rosa. She has on many occasions displayed that critique on the SWP (and IMT, perhaps other organisations too) is by very definition unacceptable for her. You may make tons of reasonable arguments, throw in obvious facts and undermine the "logic" she is using, she'll come up with something new and uses it to denounce you. No doubt she has replied to my post in which I destroyed her "this is an irrelevant split as the SWP has 4000+ members" argument in the same manner. I for one don't waste my energy on her anymore and I would suggest everyone to do the same. She is the epitome of a dishonest troll.

I accept your capitulation, and trust you have reformed your ways and will no longer post little other than sectarian attacks on fellow Trotskyists. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0025.gif http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0092.gifhttp://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0094.gif

Some hope... :(

[Saorsa]

Rosa is a troll. That is all.