SWP's internal bulletin leaked [Archive]

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 00:33

They're coming for you...

Nothing particularly enlightening, but an interesting read nevertheless.

Recruitment drive

1. The recent weeks have seen an explosion of resistance to the Con- Dem coalition’s assault on education. The radicalisation of the student movement is having an impact on the trade union movement and the anti-cuts campaigns. Over the coming months we can expect to see a massive demonstration headed up by the TUC and hopefully strikes against the cuts.
2. The SWP is at the heart of the struggle. Over the six week period of the student protests at the end of last year we have seen a very large number of people join or say they are interested in joining the SWP.

Day X (10 November) 74 sign ups
Day X2 (24 November) 69 sign ups
Day X3 (30 November) 22 sign ups
Kettle Parliament (9 December) 103 sign ups

The total number of people who joined in November was 92, this does not include any of the forms above. That means over roughly 30 days 360 people joined or expressed an interest in joining. This is the high- est level of recruitment we have seen since 2003.

3. This period gives us a real opportunity to both increase the size and influence of the party.

4. Some comrades are nervous about the possibilities of mass recruit- ment. They believe this has lead to a ‘revolving door’ syndrome - one where comrades join on protests and leave after a short period because they have not been integrated into the organisation.

5. We don’t believe the problems associated with past recruitment drives should be an impediment to launching a recruitment drive in 2011. However we do believe we have to address some of the mistakes made in the past and put in place measures that will give the SWP the maximum opportunities to grow in this exciting period.

Recruitment

1. Last year 1184 joined the SWP.

2. The Party should set a target of 2000 recruits to the SWP in 2011 and we need to campaign to ensure that at least 40% of new recruits pay by Direct Debit.

3. The recruitment drive should be pushed through every layer of the Party.
• Every district and branch must draw up a ‘hit list’ of people they believe it is possible to recruit.
• Every branch and district should have a plan about what level of recruitment is possible and how it can be achieved.
• Every SWP branch should have a Membership Secretary.
• Industrial fractions at national and district levels should also discuss recruitment and think about those we have met in campaigns, strikes etc. Then these possible recruits have to be targeted and progress re- viewed at the next caucus.
• Bigger sales of SW can provide a new pool of possible recruits. We should encourage comrades to sell at college/work/ in their areas and then ask regular paper buyers to join.
• The recruitment drive has to be pushed in our publications.
• Public meetings should be organised across the country in towns and cities where we have active branches but also in places where there is no SWP branches.
• A new membership card should be produced.
• Regular reports should continue to be made to the party on the levels of recruitment.

Retention

1. If we are going to expand the SWP, retaining new members is key.

2. We should continue with the process of registering new recruits which we have implemented in the last few months. Every SWP membership form we receive at the moment from the student demos is treated as if the person is asking for more information. Each person is then sent a letter urging them to join, information about their local branch and a copy of Socialist Worker and the Socialist Review. These contacts are then followed up by an email and calls from organis- ers and the local membership secretary urging them to get involved. Anyone who pays a DD or gets involved in their local group/branch or responds confirming they wish to be a member will be registered as a party member.

2. We should organise two ‘Student and New Members’ schools’ – one in London for the South and one in the North. These should be held on Sunday __th March. These should be followed up with local ‘edu- cationals’.

3. Our new book – ‘The case for Revolution’ should be promoted as widely as possible.

4. We should encourage the setting up of school and FE groups that meet up at times that suit the students.

Proposed by the Central committee
__
Timothy from York proposed an amendment to add “at least” before the figure 2,000 in point 2 of recruitment. This was accepted by the CC and passed by conferencehttp://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/488282.html?c=on

DaringMehring

11th November 2011, 00:47

This doesn't seem very special.

I would hope a left-wing group would be excited by increased recruiting possibilities.

It does strike as a bit vulgar, the line about "direct debit." The point is to have active, fighting members, who pay dues because they believe in the organization, not to squeeze a few extra payments out of people through inertia.

Good job on actually caring about retention, though.

And good luck!

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 00:51

This doesn't seem very special.

I'll wrap it in a bow next time. :p

I would hope a left-wing group would be excited by increased recruiting possibilities.Sure, they naturally are. I suppose the point is that the SWP are particularly obsessed with recruitment, who often attempt to obfuscate it. They can also be quite nefarious about the recruitment, so it's interesting to read what they're talking about.

Good job on actually caring about retention, though.

And good luck!

I'm not a member of the SWP.

the last donut of the night

11th November 2011, 00:51

ZeroNowhere

11th November 2011, 00:52

Bigger sales of SW can provide a new pool of possible recruits. We should encourage comrades to sell at college/work/ in their areas and then ask regular paper buyers to join.Heh.

In any case, though, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly shocking or surprising in there. Perhaps that is itself incriminating, however.

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 00:54

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 00:55

Heh.

In any case, though, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly shocking or surprising in there.

I don't think it's supposed to be shocking or surprising...:)

Nothing Human Is Alien

11th November 2011, 00:55

Nice business plan.

North Star

11th November 2011, 02:33

Seems bureaucratic. If not for passing mentions of revolution and radical students, would anyone even guess this is from some group wanting to be a revolutionary party?

BurnTheOliveTree

13th November 2011, 01:23

Neo-bolshevik - that's just the section on recruitment out of quite a long bulletin. of course if you snip out everything but recruitment then the impression will be of a bureaucratic organisation, but it doesn't give an accurate picture really.

Patchd

13th November 2011, 01:53

Oh what a surprise, and nothing about the importance of someone's politics before joining, just so long as they're a regular buyer of Socialist Worker. :laugh:

KurtFF8

13th November 2011, 01:55

Seems bureaucratic. If not for passing mentions of revolution and radical students, would anyone even guess this is from some group wanting to be a revolutionary party?

Why would an internal bulletin of this nature need to be anything other than organizational matters?

And why would Indymedia UK publish this?

Rocky Rococo

13th November 2011, 09:11

Why would an internal bulletin of this nature need to be anything other than organizational matters?

And why would Indymedia UK publish this?

I would imagine that like most indymedia outlets, indymedia uk allows open posting. The more interesting question is why anyone would find a need to post it either there or here, never mind both. Shit-stirring for no reason other than shit-stirring. That was the common manner in which Nixon's cointelpro operation worked, with considerable effectiveness.

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 09:17

Oh my god, so the SWP sells papers and tries to win people to their politics!? Hang on all these years I thought they were an auto club. Seriously, such devious bastards for keeping track of how one of their stated and open tasks is progressing!

I mean are they targeting and trying to poach the members of other groups? Are they doing anything that they claim they don't want to do or anything underhanded at all? What's the point if they are trying to recruit people to their group, isn't that what they say they want to do? I'm sure every group from large anarchist organizations to the IWW to the RCP does this and keeps membership lists and the like.

The real question to me is why people are doing free intel work for the police by posting this stuff around the indymedia? Libertarian and Tea-Partiers will be pleased because leftist sectarianism is like a privatized COINTELPRO program - spying with no need for expanding government spending.

black magick hustla

13th November 2011, 09:35

pffffff moonbat internationale is better

ComradeOm

13th November 2011, 09:56

I'm sure every group from large anarchist organizations to the IWW to the RCP does this and keeps membership lists and the likeI'd be interested in knowing if any are as number driven as this. It's not "membership lists" or recruiting drives but the relentless focus on targets that surprises. Or fails to surprise

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 10:01

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 10:05

I'd be interested in knowing if any are as number driven as this. It's not "membership lists" or recruiting drives but the relentless focus on targets that surprises. Or fails to surpriseI was accidentally sent an email by an anarchist I organize with and he was talking about who he had influence with and who he thought he could win to his side.

Good, we need more conscious radicals involved in activism and organizing. We need people won away from liberal or pessimistic ideas and strategies. I'd only have a problem with a memo like this if a group was trying to sabotage other groups they work with or poach their members.

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 10:07

...So no then...

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 10:31

Why do you always respond to things in this highly personalised, sarcastic manner? Are you unable to conduct a normal conversation?I thought sarcasm was normal conversation on the internet.

Sarcastic you mean like:

pffffff moonbat internationale is better
Oh what a surprise, and nothing about the importance of someone's politics before joining, just so long as they're a regular buyer of Socialist Worker. :laugh:
Nice business plan
They're coming for you...Seems like you are being a bit selective in your role of sarcasm-police.

But in general, if you want serious responses, don't make silly threads.

ComradeOm

13th November 2011, 10:32

I was accidentally sent an email by an anarchist I organize with and he was talking about who he had influence with and who he thought he could win to his sideYeah, it's probably endemic across the modern 'left'. Understand that I've no interest in defending or attacking any particular organisation here

Good, we need more conscious radicals involved in activism and organizingPrioritising recruitment is fine but not in this top-down target driven fashion. What does the target of '2000 new members this year' mean? Nothing, it's numbers for the sake of numbers; fantasy planning*. They're measuring their performance on a very simple, and false, figure and then prioritising that and forming recruitment strategy around it. It's bad practice

*I did enjoy the amendment from 'Timothy from York'. At a stroke he makes a bad target absolutely meaningless while drawing obvious comparisons with Stalinist utopian planning

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th November 2011, 10:34

Oh what a surprise, and nothing about the importance of someone's politics before joining, just so long as they're a regular buyer of Socialist Worker. :laugh:

I concur, in all my "official" interactions SWP members I never saw any serious attempts by them to gauge my politics.

The real question to me is why people are doing free intel work for the police by posting this stuff around the indymedia? Libertarian and Tea-Partiers will be pleased because leftist sectarianism is like a privatized COINTELPRO program - spying with no need for expanding government spending.

Please explain to me how the release of this information to the general public (who should be able to know such things) helps the authorities in any way? Nothing illegal is being advocated, no SWP members' details are included in the bulletin. It sounds here like you're using the threat of the authorities as an excuse to muzzle criticism.

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 10:40

I thought sarcasm was normal conversation on the internet.

Sarcastic you mean like:
Seems like you are being a bit selective in your role of sarcasm-police.

But in general, if you want serious responses, don't make silly threads.

Tu quoque. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

In any case, I'm not talking about those people, I'm talking about you specifically. You're the person I have had most contact with on this board in the 6 days I've been a member and on every occasion you have conducted yourself like a petulant child.

ComradeOm

13th November 2011, 10:48

Nobody ever comes out of these threads smelling of roses. Which is why I tend to avoid them. Obviously I can't comment on your interaction with Jimmie over the past few days but, for what it's worth, he is certainly one of the more productive/positive contributors to this forum

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 10:48

Please explain to me how the release of this information to the general public (who should be able to know such things) helps the authorities in any way? Nothing illegal is being advocated, no SWP members' details are included in the bulletin. It sounds here like you're using the threat of the authorities as an excuse to muzzle criticism.Why should the general public be able to know about the internal workings of a group unless there is somehow proof that that group is lying or misleading people? Should the emails between anarchists or other radicals in the occupy movement be released and leaked to the general public? I think not.

The group I'm in was expelled by the SWP and while I have strong political agreement with their theories, it seems pretty obvious they are suffering due to organizational and internal problems and I have no stake in defending them in particular. I have no stake in trying to muzzle POLITICAL and useful debate and criticism - only useless sectarian crap. In fact, ComradeOm's post about the top-down manner in which they are trying to recruit is one of the few POLITICAL criticisms to even come out of this thread.

So you think that we should release internal memos and snitch on other groups on the left? How does this help the movement unless the SWP was actually doing something harmful themselves? This kind of stuff is poison for the left.

Yeah, it's probably endemic across the modern 'left'. Understand that I've no interest in defending or attacking any particular organisation hereDidn't think you were, I just think that radicals SHOULD be trying to win people to our side right now. How the SWP goes about it and if they are successful or misleading people about it is all fair game for debate IMO.

I don't think, for example, that the RCP's politics can actually help workers win self-emancipation because they think revolutionaries need to run society after a revolution until workers are ready. But I would not try and say things like "they're coming to get you" to try and make them seem sinister, I'd be upfront and criticize their politics. I think it's unhelpful and condescending to workers to try and score sect and ideological points rather than have an upfront debate about politics and tactics.

It's like how bourgeois parties fight it out: they don't talk politics, they smear eachother and try and cast doubt on eachother's sincerity or intentions. This is because they don't care - in fact don't want - workers to have a political understanding of what's going on.

Nothing Human Is Alien

13th November 2011, 11:13

I'm sure every group from large anarchist organizations to the IWW to the RCP does this and keeps membership lists and the like.

No. Not every group actively recruits; not every organization prioritizes selling papers. Many or even most do. But not all.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th November 2011, 11:26

Why should the general public be able to know about the internal workings of a group unless there is somehow proof that that group is lying or misleading people?

So accountability and transparency are things that happen to other people, I take it?

Should the emails between anarchists or other radicals in the occupy movement be released and leaked to the general public? I think not.

Apples and oranges. Private communications between individuals are not the same as the ongoing policies of a group that engages the public.

The group I'm in was expelled by the SWP and while I have strong political agreement with their theories, it seems pretty obvious they are suffering due to organizational and internal problems and I have no stake in defending them in particular. I have no stake in trying to muzzle POLITICAL and useful debate and criticism - only useless sectarian crap. In fact, ComradeOm's post about the top-down manner in which they are trying to recruit is one of the few POLITICAL criticisms to even come out of this thread.

The recruitment policies of an explicitly political organisation are not of political interest? Really?

So you think that we should release internal memos and snitch on other groups on the left? How does this help the movement unless the SWP was actually doing something harmful themselves? This kind of stuff is poison for the left.

Releasing internal memos isn't snitching unless it contains information pertaining to criminal activities and/or the details of members. Stop trying to obfuscate the release of information with dobbing people in.

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 12:31

So accountability and transparency are things that happen to other people, I take it?Transparency and accountability to whom? Why doesn't revleft post personal information - what are we trying to hide? Should peace-police un-mask black blocked people in the name of accountability and transparency like the liberals have threatened to do here in Oakland?

Disagreements are fine, I disagree with the black block tactics and think open organizing is much more useful in building a connection between the class and radical politics, but I also think we need to have a little solidarity amongst radicals even when we disagree. I'd argue against hiding your face and organizing in secret, but I would never fucking expose other people who organize that way even if what they were doing is completely legal.

Seriously, they have an internal memo, they are a group accountable only to their own members, why should they not be able to discuss things internally amongst themselves? Who are you or who is some anonymous person on IndyMedia to dictate to them how they should organize internally?

Apples and oranges. Private communications between individuals are not the same as the ongoing policies of a group that engages the public.I'm not saying plans for the weekend, but why should internal discussions of people in formal groups be considered different than internal discussions among people in informal groups if it pertains to the same things? Why is it different if an affinity group discusses a movement or their plans amongst themselves and it's "private emails" but if a formal organization does the same thing, they have to release that information to everyone?

The recruitment policies of an explicitly political organisation are not of political interest? Really?What's the political argument around posting this information? What's the political relevance or argument here? Really it's only good for people who want to bash this or that tendency or organization.

If people want to argue that groups should not try and convince people of their politics, that groups should not recruit people to organize with them, then be fucking up front about it and make the argument without being the self-appointed leftie CIA.

Releasing internal memos isn't snitching unless it contains information pertaining to criminal activities and/or the details of members. Stop trying to obfuscate the release of information with dobbing people in.That memo was an internal discussion of one of their stated goals - they wanted it to be internal, there's no information there that does anything to show they are lying or sabotaging anything so, again, what is the point of posting it?

Nothing Human Is Alien

13th November 2011, 12:40

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 13:15

I smell hog shit.Sorry about that, Snaowball's been eating fast-food again. Maybe a scented candle will help:lol:

The Bolsheviks operated under more repressive conditions than the SWP does in the UK, and they openly discussed things like their funding, decisions, resolutions, etc. -- not to mention internal disputes -- in their paper (which by the way members didn't have to sell).That's great for them and maybe people should argue for groups to do the same now. But what does this have to do with leaking internal information if a group does want to keep it internal? My argument is about people doing unprincipled things like leaking internal discussions of groups they presumably have disagreements with in order to make that group seem sinister or something. Why would someone support unilaterally forcing other groups to do something in a certain way?

Shit like this in the 1960s and 1970s movements was absolute poison and made it easy for the government to pit black radical groups, for example, against each-other. Let's be more principled and upfront about our arguments and disagreements about politics and tactics.

black magick hustla

13th November 2011, 13:31

this is a discussion forum. if u want to get a handjob my hands have blisters :(

on a more serious note, i dont see why "recruitment" as a priority is good at all. it creates this large, bureacratic top down structures and then folks who have no say in the decision process. the revolution wont come by the swp gaining more due paying members. but then again ive been coming pretty near to camatte's thesis that all formal political organizations are rackets. need someone to save me from the cammatte turn

13th November 2011, 13:50

i'm sorry but am i the only one who read the thread title and thought, "who the fuck cares anymore?" (no offense to you, The Insurrection, i'm pissed off about other stuff). like, most workers in the UK don't give a fuck about a party that's increasingly becoming just another irrelevant leftist sect. i get it that people here love going on about what party is the most revolutionary, but in the larger picture, it all looks ridiculous to see people get their panties in a knot about party politics.

i'm sorry, i'm not meaning to troll, i just legitimately don't understand why the coming shitstorm had to brew at all -- why do we even involve in these little petty conflicts? there are much larger struggles happening, more brainpower and energy should be saved discussing and analyzing those

I largely agree. I think you attribute more significance to this thread than's probably deserved. It's just a thread on a message board. It's a thread among hundreds that may or may not take someones interest.

I would say on a political level it's important to be aware of the tactics of political organisations or at least get an insight into them, since we have to combat bad ideas and those who try and spread them.

I agree on both counts. Yes, the SWP Internal Bulletin is a dreadful, boring read, but that in itself says everything about the political level inside the SWP or, more precisely, the complete lack of such a culture. The lack of debate of the membership says everything about the complete inability of the SWP to perform the task they were founded for: A revolutionary transformation of society by politicising the working class into a class-collective wanting to take political power.

In contrast, the SWP seems devoid of critical thinking. The membership has never been thaught to think. They are merely drilled into following, obedience to the "party line" (a line ordinary members barely have a say in) and of course in selling papers and recruiting more robots to build the apparatus further and compensate for the people who become thoroughly disillusioned in communist politics because of such a bureaucratic nightmare of a "party". The IB reflects all of this very clearly.

I also refer to the following article, giving a more indepth reply regarding IB number 2: No ambition, no vision (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004612).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th November 2011, 13:59

Transparency and accountability to whom? Why doesn't revleft post personal information - what are we trying to hide?

Revleft isn't an organisation and I explicitly specified personal details as one of the things that shouldn't be released. Stop confusing things.

Disagreements are fine, I disagree with the black block tactics and think open organizing is much more useful in building a connection between the class and radical politics, but I also think we need to have a little solidarity amongst radicals even when we disagree. I'd argue against hiding your face and organizing in secret, but I would never fucking expose other people who organize that way even if what they were doing is completely legal.

Who's being exposed in this instance? A guy named Timothy from York?

Seriously, they have an internal memo, they are a group accountable only to their own members, why should they not be able to discuss things internally amongst themselves? Who are you or who is some anonymous person on IndyMedia to dictate to them how they should organize internally?

They can have any structure they damn well please. There's a difference between knowing about something and dictating it.

I'm not saying plans for the weekend, but why should internal discussions of people in formal groups be considered different than internal discussions among people in informal groups if it pertains to the same things?

It doesn't though, does it? Informal groups do not have membership rosters including personal details, which people should be aware of how they go about acquiring.

What's the political argument around posting this information? What's the political relevance or argument here? Really it's only good for people who want to bash this or that tendency or organization.

You don't think how a political organisation goes about recruiting new members is something that should be subject to public scrutiny?

If people want to argue that groups should not try and convince people of their politics, that groups should not recruit people to organize with them, then be fucking up front about it and make the argument without being the self-appointed leftie CIA.

Well, I don't know about most people, but I imagine at least some of them, myself included, would want to see if the organisation as a whole values members as political agents or whether it just sees them as yet more human resources who, coincidentally, should be considered suspicious for wanting to know what they're getting into.

That memo was an internal discussion of one of their stated goals - they wanted it to be internal, there's no information there that does anything to show they are lying or sabotaging anything so, again, what is the point of posting it?

Well that's good isn't it? It shows that whatever else one may accuse the SWP of, active mendacity with regards to recruitment isn't one of them. But there doesn't have to be malignancy for there to be information of concern to the general public, like for instance someone just getting into activism and considering which organisation to add their straw to.

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 14:20

I don't know what that handjob reference was about - are you saying it's a discussion forum so being principled shouldn't happen and solidarity goes out the window?

Well, whatever. Regarding recruitment, like I said, I think all radicals should be trying to convince people and win people to radical politics at this time when people are beginning to radicalize and fight-back. Does the SWP do that in a good way? I don't know, I'm in the US, but form what I've read it seems like they have a lot of internal issues and problems. Does the SWP do this to the detriment of movements, maybe that's an argument here. Yes, none of the information in this memo is particularly damaging or anything, but none of that really justifies unprincipled tactics and I can't believe people here would defend it just because you happen to not like the group it's directed at.

Regarding transparency and accountability, does anyone else find it ironic, then that the Indymedia post is basically anonymous? It's credited to "SWPwatch" - is that a group in the UK? What's their agenda or purpose for leaking information from internal discussions of group(s) on the left? Is it like Redwatch?

There's a difference between knowing about something and dictating it.So a person thinks all groups should have all their information public - some group wants to have internal discussions and reports but then that other person unilaterally leaks their internal discussions to the public... how is that not dictating what is an internal or external discussion for some group? What if they were assessing what rank and file members in a strike are militant or not, which ones they think might sell-out the strike etc... that would probably make them look bad and untrustworthy and it wouldn't give anything illegal away, but should that be leaked too? Where's the line on what should or should not be made public, who decides that if not the people having the discussion themselves?

Well, I don't know about most people, but I imagine at least some of them, myself included, would want to see if the organisation as a whole values members as political agents or whether it just sees them as yet more human resources who, coincidentally, should be considered suspicious for wanting to know what they're getting into.Well than this memo won't help you on that account. It's one internal report and I'd expect it would be numbers and such, not a political argument about how or why they should do something. So not only should all organizations release all internal discussions, but they should also then explain the political reasoning behind the report even if the people involved are already coming from a common understanding?

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 14:36

bricolage

13th November 2011, 14:59

I think its the sentence 'The Party should set a target of 2000 recruits to the SWP in 2011 and we need to campaign to ensure that at least 40% of new recruits pay by Direct Debit.' that does it. 2000 is a number completely divorced from anything other than statistics, having no relation to social forces and the material circumstances they operate in. What does having 2000 mean? Does it mean we are 1 2000th closer to revolution? It's the same kind of thinking that talks about waiting for a mathematical majority before starting revolutionary movement yet doesn't in any way address what such a number would do or why having 2000 instead of 1999 makes any kind of difference. I think this whole thing is stupid really, the SWP likes to recruit new members, so what? From a lot of the left who also prize recruitment I imagine they go on about this so much out of some kind of jealousy, for the rest the SWP are just a bogeyman so hide their own failures in organising. I don't particularly care for the politics of the SWP but I'm not gonna go on about it like it means something. I do however have a much bigger problem with the quantitative ideas of 'the movement' that this document epitomises, ideas that are by no means confined to one Trot group.

KurtFF8

13th November 2011, 17:35

I smell hog shit.

The Bolsheviks operated under more repressive conditions than the SWP does in the UK, and they openly discussed things like their funding, decisions, resolutions, etc. -- not to mention internal disputes -- in their paper (which by the way members didn't have to sell).

But this doesn't get to the question of why this was leaked presumably by another Left group?

The SWP didn't out this memo out, someone else did. That is not a fair way to attack another group, and as Jimmy pointed out: it is the worst kind of sectarianism possible.

I'm not fan of the SWP but publishing internal memos, no matter how unrevealing they are, is very uncomradely.

IndependentCitizen

13th November 2011, 18:32

"And by Q4, we should have made over 9,000 pennies in profit"

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 18:34

Again, what is the purpose of leaking memos like this on IndyMedia? Was it a secret that the SWP tries to recruit people? Is there information that the SWP is tricking people or hurting them that would be vital for others to know?

If there is nothing secretive or consequential about the information in the memo, why do you care whether other people read it?

Jimmie Higgins

13th November 2011, 19:37

If there is nothing secretive or consequential about the information in the memo, why do you care whether other people read it?Yes you are correct, it's not all that sensitive and I don't care if people read it now that it's out. But whose decision is it to make what internal discussions are public or not? People leaking internal debates would actually hurt transparency and accountability within a group or movement since it would make people not want to be open about their ideas and it would make groups not want to have open debates because if someone made a dumb proposal that everyone else voted down, some sectarian internet trolls would still jump all over that as evidence of disorder within the group or bad politics of the group etc. ANd why does "SWPwatch" get to decide for a group of hundreds or thousands what counts as sensitive or not sensitive - shouldn't that be up to the group themselves?

Besides, it's the principle of the thing. If people have problems with the SWP recruiting people, have it out and make a political argument. Don't sneak around and cast doubts or insulate things or try and make people think what other groups are doing in sinister. I don't think this memo is actually that sensitive, but THEY obviously wanted it to be an internal discussion and I do have a problem with leftists acting like the CIA and snitching and leaking internal debates and information just to fuck over groups they may not like. It's unprincipled and doesn't even make an argument to workers about staying away from bad politics. It's just trickery to score points like what bourgeois politicians do. It's bad for the whole radical left.

Besides, no one has answered my question - what's the point of releasing this info - who are SWP watch, what's their agenda? Why do you think they want to do it. With a name like SWPwatch do you think they are primarily interested in transparency and public knowledge or trashing some group they don't like?

SocialistTommy

13th November 2011, 20:31

IMO, they're just looking for a few extra quid, talk about being the 'Socialist' worker's party, they're giving the impression that you need money in order to join.

IndependentCitizen

14th November 2011, 15:24

IMO, they're just looking for a few extra quid, talk about being the 'Socialist' worker's party, they're giving the impression that you need money in order to join.

Well, they do need money to maintain their party. However, this memo seems to ignore education of its new members, which if you want to maintain a high level of membership have a few quid extra to spend on helping the party, then you need to keep them interested and educated!

BurnTheOliveTree

14th November 2011, 16:42

People are looking at the section on recruitment, which is one section in a large internal bulletin. If you only show the section on recruitment, you will get the impression of a recruitment obsessed party - but it doesn't connect with anything in reality.

graymouser

14th November 2011, 17:15

S.Artesian

14th November 2011, 19:56

I thought sarcasm was normal conversation on the internet.

Sarcastic you mean like:
Seems like you are being a bit selective in your role of sarcasm-police.

But in general, if you want serious responses, don't make silly threads.

Sarcasm is always called for, always appropriate, and always welcome. And I mean that without a trace of sarcasm.

A Marxist Historian

14th November 2011, 22:32

Sam_b

14th November 2011, 22:35

So what? SWP internals have been accessed for years, most notoriously by the CPGB.

Sam_b

14th November 2011, 22:37

they're giving the impression that you need money in order to join

So all those materials, newspapers, meeting rooms just appear out of thin air? It's pretty bizarre to criticise the SWP for doing what most decent organisations should do, i.e have a programme of membership subscriptions. What part of paying dues to your group makes it so un-socialist?

Jimmie Higgins

14th November 2011, 23:08

I actually find the thing about direct debit a bit unprincipled and problematic. When I was in the ISO, I was basically pushed to do an automated withdrawal of my dues - which were not low, but I didn't mind paying. This is SOP in the ISO and apparently in the British SWP as well. But when I left it took time & effort to actually stop payments - and I wound up making a month's payment when I had already left the group. Never got the money back.

A political organization that can convince people of its line and the value of membership, should not need to go to these methods for getting money. I pay my dues every month in Socialist Action (plus a sustainer because our dues structure is too low), and I would refuse to do direct debit in any organization again. It is an elementary test of members' actual commitment to the group, to have them directly pay their dues. This ensures that every member is active and committed, and not just a member on paper.

There are a lot of problems with using direct debit. Aside from the commitment issue, it makes it hard for members to adjust their dues levels as appropriate - for instance, if somebody loses their job it's one more stress they have to go through, to change or stop their dues payment. It also leads to the exact problem I had - where people wind up making an "extra" dues payment on leaving, which frankly I think is intentional. When you have high and rapid turnover, which the SWP and ISO both do, it's a bit shady (to say the least) to set up your dues structure so you get a "free" month or so from people who leave your organization.

Sorry you had trouble canceling - but frankly, if that was the worst of it, it's not a big deal. Have you ever tried canceling anything at a bank or switching banks? It's always a pain in the ass.

How does Socialist Alternative collect and raise money? What's a better method for having an organization that can promote it's ideas, make pickets, raise legal defense, pay rent on organizational storage spaces, websites, fliers, publications etc and spend time dealing with the political questions rather than asking people each month to pay.

I really don't see what the deal with direct deposit it - I pay bills that way, get my paychecks that way and when I was in a union, paid those dues that way. Just to juxtapose your experience with mine, about 1/3 or the branch I'm in pay no or $5 a month in dues because of either unemployment or unstable employment. Only 1/4 pay more than $45 a month in a branch of 25 and most of our members are working, not in college.

And it is a political issue - for those who do agree with trying to build this organization. Having a set monthly dues let's us know organizationally what to expect financially better than people paying $5 one month and then $20 the next and then back to $5. And like I said it's better to spend time doing political work rather than having to do fund-drives all the time or constantly asking our members to pay dues each month.

It's like if we tell people when they join that members are expected to help financially support the operations of the organization we are somehow accused of "only wanting money" and if we didn't put that upfront, then other people who don't like us politically would accuse us of being disingenuous and tricking people to join just to then charge them.

It's like the right-wing wankers who say, "Oh a socialist paper, Oh you have a copy of the Communist Manifesto, why don't you give them to me for free if you're a socialist!". Sure dude, as soon as workers are running their own print-shops, as soon as loggers and paper-mill workers and truck-drivers all operate their own workplaces you can have a free copy. It's capitalism, it takes money to do things.

Jimmie Higgins

14th November 2011, 23:11

Sarcasm is always called for, always appropriate, and always welcome. And I mean that without a trace of sarcasm.Oh sure ya do.

Nothing Human Is Alien

14th November 2011, 23:18

Have you ever tried canceling anything at a bank or switching banks? It's always a pain in the ass. Cool. Your socialist organization operates just like any other business. Great job.

when I was in a union, paid those dues that way.And militants historically fought against that since it contributed to the separation of the leaders from the rank and file and a lack of accountability.

If the money comes out of bank accounts or pay checks automatically you don't need to talk to the rank and file or convince them that what you are doing is in their interests or worthwhile. If you have to talk to them face to face each month they have a chance to ask questions and hold you accountable for your actions and the actions of the organization, and withhold their money if they are not satisfied.

graymouser

14th November 2011, 23:55

Sorry you had trouble canceling - but frankly, if that was the worst of it, it's not a big deal. Have you ever tried canceling anything at a bank or switching banks? It's always a pain in the ass.

How does Socialist Alternative collect and raise money? What's a better method for having an organization that can promote it's ideas, make pickets, raise legal defense, pay rent on organizational storage spaces, websites, fliers, publications etc and spend time dealing with the political questions rather than asking people each month to pay.

I really don't see what the deal with direct deposit it - I pay bills that way, get my paychecks that way and when I was in a union, paid those dues that way. Just to juxtapose your experience with mine, about 1/3 or the branch I'm in pay no or $5 a month in dues because of either unemployment or unstable employment. Only 1/4 pay more than $45 a month in a branch of 25 and most of our members are working, not in college.

And it is a political issue - for those who do agree with trying to build this organization. Having a set monthly dues let's us know organizationally what to expect financially better than people paying $5 one month and then $20 the next and then back to $5. And like I said it's better to spend time doing political work rather than having to do fund-drives all the time or constantly asking our members to pay dues each month.

It's like if we tell people when they join that members are expected to help financially support the operations of the organization we are somehow accused of "only wanting money" and if we didn't put that upfront, then other people who don't like us politically would accuse us of being disingenuous and tricking people to join just to then charge them.

It's like the right-wing wankers who say, "Oh a socialist paper, Oh you have a copy of the Communist Manifesto, why don't you give them to me for free if you're a socialist!". Sure dude, as soon as workers are running their own print-shops, as soon as loggers and paper-mill workers and truck-drivers all operate their own workplaces you can have a free copy. It's capitalism, it takes money to do things.
Members of Socialist Action pay dues to the branch treasurer, or if they are at-large remit to the national office directly. Dues are paid by check or in cash. I'd assume it's the same for Socialist Alternative. Our dues structure is flat at $5 per month - has been for a while - with additional contributions according to the individual member's means. This means that in a lean month I could cut my sustainer back from its current level.

I paid more than $45 a month in the ISO and I was making less than I am now. I didn't mind - if you are a part of an organization you can give it money, that's fine. But I think there's something very bureaucratic about a group that mass-recruits, has retention problems that have been a long and well known fact, and yet insists upon this direct debit.

As far as the Marxist Historian's concerns above, they are noted but I have to wonder, if you follow the chain of logic down it would mean that revolutionaries should avoid banks of all kinds. If you order stuff from the Spartacist League you still make the check out to "Spartacist Publishing Co" - so the banks still have links between you and the organization. Maybe they all pay their dues in cash, but somehow I don't think so.

scarletghoul

15th November 2011, 00:45

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 04:25

Cool. Your socialist organization operates just like any other business. Great job.Watch-out, the sarcasm police will come for you.

I guess it does operate like any other business if businesses are dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and self-emancipation of the working class from below.

Do you pay rent? Wow you must be like a petty bourgeois shop owner then.

And militants historically fought against that since it contributed to the separation of the leaders from the rank and file and a lack of accountability. Dues could be used to pay for strike funds and the like, there is no correlation there. Besides that's a shit political analysis - dues create the rift between rank and file and create an unaccountable labor bureaucracy... like money and power corrupts?

I think the separation probably has more to do with the class position of the labor leadership which in nature fence-sits between capital and labor and needs both in order to maintain it's position.

If the money comes out of bank accounts or pay checks automatically you don't need to talk to the rank and file or convince them that what you are doing is in their interests or worthwhile.Um... yeah I don't think any organization could just take money out of people's bank accounts without convincing them that doing so is worthwhile.

As I said before - not that the actual political issues matters to you - I think direct deposit is a good way to handle dues so that activists don't have to do the mechanical treasury tasks as much and can do more valuable things with their time. No one is forced to have direct deposit and no one is forced to even pay the suggested income-based dues. Convincing people that it's worth it is the only thing that will work.

If you have to talk to them face to face each month they have a chance to ask questions and hold you accountable for your actions and the actions of the organization, and withhold their money if they are not satisfied.If someone pays dues but is not actively building movements and our group, they are not an active member.

Now tell us, how would your organization handle these issues?

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 04:28

Jimmie Higgins I don't think anyone is criticising a party for trying to get new members, and getting them to give some money. The problem is that this seems to be the only thing they care about, their only policy being to get moar students and get money,, theres no concrete proletarian praxis at all. recruitment is seen as a goal in itself.. in fact 'retention' is looked at as an inconveniant thing that causes extra bother ! this is completely the wrong attitude; surely a good party would have the content and internal dynamics which make the people who join want to stay anyway without even trying (i mean, anyone who joined in the first place must be an enthusiastic activist,, the fact that so many end up leaving tells us a lot about the party's attitude and methods with its low level members). More generally, the party seems to be obsessed with imparting the wisdom of their leaders upon the lower members through books and papers etc, and not at all interested in learning anything from the members. they prefer them to act like robots. it is a real shame... the amount of people who 'used to be in the swp',, whose revolutionary enthusiasm was taken and dried up by this shitty party, is truly saddeningMaybe that's the case maybe it isn't, but your reasoning seems to just be a hit piece. Everything in your post is "it seems" and a lot of speculation and other people characterizing this group. Really, would anyone interested in making money try and do it on the left? Groups shrink or fail all the time and I think bad politics and organization seem more likely than a group recruiting just for money. If there are serious issues involved, make political arguments about it and convince me - don't rely on baseless speculation and some internal leaked document removed from all context with no members involved to explain it.

Members of Socialist Action pay dues to the branch treasurer, or if they are at-large remit to the national office directly. Dues are paid by check or in cash. I'd assume it's the same for Socialist Alternative. Our dues structure is flat at $5 per month - has been for a while - with additional contributions according to the individual member's means. This means that in a lean month I could cut my sustainer back from its current level.So you have people each month collecting money, spending political time checking members and hunting them down for payment? Do you break their knees if they don't pay up? I'm not being serious of course, but that's the kind of things people would say if the SWP did things this way. It's not really about paying dues or having direct deposit - really it's just people don't like X organization and want to raise suspicion in the most unpolitical and weaselly ways.

I paid more than $45 a month in the ISO and I was making less than I am now. I didn't mind - if you are a part of an organization you can give it money, that's fine. But I think there's something very bureaucratic about a group that mass-recruits, has retention problems that have been a long and well known fact, and yet insists upon this direct debit.That assumes 1) that we have retention problems which is not the case though it has been at different times in the past when there was more campus branches; people graduate, move away. On top of that were some internal organizing issues that we debated and corrected, IMO, in a positive way and then there's the general issues of retention problems for left-wing in general - most of the coalitions I was involved in had retention problems and activists did not go from one movement to the next through a lot of the past decade. Besides I think the retention issue is over-stated by other groups - RevLeft has a much higher turn-over rate that the ISO by a long-shot :D 2) You assume we don't want or don't care if we win people to building the group and basic political agreement. This is just your personal prejudice, not a political argument let alone "fact". There are political reasons for people to be in this group or that, but harping on direct deposit which is just one method for doing what all these groups do anyway seems weak and not very upfront about the real political differences which are really why people support this group or that. 3) You don't have to direct deposit - we just recommend it because it helps planning for things if you have a roughly fixed level of dues coming in and frankly having to have a treasurer and someone checking up to make sure dues are being collected is a pain in the ass and a waste of time if it can just be done automatically.

I'd rather people just set their dues lower if they don't think they can do a high amount each month, having a set level of dues just cuts out a lot of non-political work that would have to be done. The point isn't to create hardships, people pay the minimum or don't pay all the time when they are having problems - the important thing is that they are building movements and the group itself, money is part of that but we're never going to have enough money, actual organizers and activists are much more important.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 16:42

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 19:56

I have not spent enough time thinking about the leaking of the bulletin to determine how I feel about it one way or another. One thing I will note, though, is that it is absolutely pointless to try to engage Jimmie Higgins in a reasonable discussion about it. From my experiences in discussing groups linked to the International Socialist tendency, he is quite literally incapable of ceding any ground to any specific criticisms of the tendency or its (former) members.1. I have made similar arguments in PSL and RCP bashing threads and I don't agree with their politics at all. I have defended anarchism against straw-men by M-Ls. Most of the time I just try to stay out of it.

2. What specific criticisms are there here? That the SWP wants to recruit people? Yes, that's true as I have said from my first post. When ComradeOm said that the numbers were pulled out of a hat, I agreed. The rest has been speculation and people using this report to make all kinds of claims that are based not on the information contained in the memo but on their forgone conclusions and opinions about this group. If someone who has been joining in the little bash-party wants to tell me that they had no opinion on the SWP before reading this memo, step up and say so, I will be surprised.

It is clear that nobody here is justifying leaks that might release personally identifying information of people on the left. It is also clear that the motivation of the leaker and the motivation of the people publishing the leak are absolutely irrelevant in determining whether the leak was a legitimate exposure of what should be public information.People in the UK don't like the SWP and I'm sure there are plenty of valid political arguments to make, but 1) the leaked email does not show them doing anything underhanded or against their stated goals 2) Since there is no evidence of wrong-doing, the point of a leak like this is to SUGGEST doubt about a group on the left like how the OP said "there're coming to get you". What is the point of this? Is this political? Is this actually helping workers know what you think is harmful about the SWP in an honest way, or just smears?

The ISO was expelled from the IS by the SWP, why would I have an interest in going out of my way to defend them if I thought the criticisms were valid and upfront? There have been plenty of threads about the SWP on this website and this is the only one I've really thrown-down on because I find the method of attack much worse than the supposed offense. People in the US hate the RCP, but an attack on them in the same manner would not be politically helpful.

It is also clear that the motivation of the leaker and the motivation of the people publishing the leak are absolutely irrelevant in determining whether the leak was a legitimate exposure of what should be public information.Why is it irrelevant as the the motivations of a group called SWPwatch? When the media does a hit-piece on activists, are their motivations and reasons irrelevant? Are they just releasing information for the common good? Why should this information be released against the wishes of the people emailing it? What information is vital that people know - are you seriously suggesting that it was a secret that the SWP wants to recruit people?

If you are in a group, why don't you release all the internal emails you received from your group from the last six months and let me decide what's relevant for the public?

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 20:20

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 20:39

Intentions are irrelevant because it is perfectly possible for people to do the right thing for wrong reasons. Trying to refocus the discussion onto who the leakers are is not only a logical fallacy, it is a poor attempt at deflecting attention from the issue of which information should be public.

As for your inability to make specific criticisms of the iso or swp, I have no idea what your motivation is. Once again motivations are beside the point. I was making an observation about your participation on this forum.

I make criticisms of the ISO all the time - amongst people I trust who actually want to discuss how we can improve. Frankly I don't trust your sincerity in discussing these issues because of past posts you have made attacking the ISO. It seems like you are not interested in how the ISO can improve, you just have a bone to pick with the group. If I am wrong I am sorry and we can talk about this in PMs if you want.

And yes, it's an observation but an incorrect one if you are trying to suggest I am only being partisan and don't sincerely find this kind of accusations harmful to the left. Here I defend a group I have no political attachment to or agreement with:

This flier is sectarianism because the makers of the flier felt that tearing down activists they didn't like and scoring some ideological points was more important than trying to build a more effective alternative.

But seriously, who gives a fuck. If you think that her running for congress is a shit strategy, then fine, don't give her a donation, join her group, or phone bank for her campaign. Seriously, the masses are not being deceived by some obscure leftist with bad politics or tactics or an under the radar campaign. There are much much bigger fish to fry - the Democrats would be a good place to start.

Anyway, I don't find this flier relevant and I don't know why you posted it. If it's the PSL you have a political bone with, then make it political. IMO, their inconstancy on Iran's uprising vs. Egypt is a much more political and productive debate to have.

I've been as consistent arguing against such playground sectarian tactics that do nothing to help worker's struggle and only help tear down some group people may not like for either legitimate or illegitimate reasons. These kinds of attacks do not help workers make informed decisions, it just makes them suspicious of the intentions of radicals in general.

I also get particularly heated though when the organization I have personally been involved with building is subject to these kinds of unpolitical attacks and sideways suggestions that we are trying to trick people or whatnot. Part of this is because I like what we do but also it pisses me off because I always try to cut against the sectarianism on the left just to have people turn around and accuse the ISO of supporting Obama or supporting cops and bullshit like that.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 21:05

I make criticisms of the ISO all the time - amongst people I trust who actually want to discuss how we can improve. Frankly I don't trust your sincerity in discussing these issues because of past posts you have made attacking the ISO. It seems like you are not interested in how the ISO can improve, you just have a bone to pick with the group. If I am wrong I am sorry and we can talk about this in PMs if you want.

This is a lot of smoke blowing. Name me a single specific criticism you've made on the ISO. I have not seen one, but that doesn't mean you haven't made one. I am giving you this opportunity to set the record straight.

I've been as consistent arguing against such playground sectarian tactics that do nothing to help worker's struggle and only help tear down some group people may not like for either legitimate or illegitimate reasons. These kinds of attacks do not help workers make informed decisions, it just makes them suspicious of the intentions of radicals in general.

I also get particularly heated though when the organization I have personally been involved with building is subject to these kinds of unpolitical attacks and sideways suggestions that we are trying to trick people or whatnot. Part of this is because I like what we do but also it pisses me off because I always try to cut against the sectarianism on the left just to have people turn around and accuse the ISO of supporting Obama or supporting cops and bullshit like that.Judging by these responses, you seem to have a hard time focusing on the issue at hand. The issue isn't how groups currently or previously affiliated with the IST are the subject of witchhunts. It's not about Obama. It's not about whether the ISO is trying to trick people. I don't even see anybody here who is arguing that the leak is important because it shows the SWP (or the ISO) is trying to trick people.

The issue is whether there are certain pieces of "internal" information that a group that tries to recruit from the general public has a legitimate reason to withhold from the public. Apart from throwing around more boilerplate nonsense about sectarianism, which seem to be your fallback in every disagreement you have on this forum, I don't see any argument about this issue. Do you care to try once more?

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 21:19

Judging by these responses, you seem to have a hard time focusing on the issue at hand. The issue isn't how groups currently or previously affiliated with the IST are the subject of witchhunts. It's not about Obama. It's not about whether the ISO is trying to trick people. I don't even see anybody here who is arguing that the leak is important because it shows the SWP (or the ISO) is trying to trick people.No, I was responding to your post and accusation that I my disgust with the type and manner of attack was only partisan. So I was explaining why I do get upset when people make less than forthright criticisms of the ISO. If someone said, for example, I disagree with the idea of "state-capitalism" or I disagree with the idea of selling papers, that's fine and I don't write that person off. But if, instead, they say, "The ISO is only interested in making money" then that's it, there's no use in actually having a discussion at that point.

The issue is whether there are certain pieces of "internal" information that a group that tries to recruit from the general public has a legitimate reason to know. Apart from throwing around more boilerplate nonsense about sectarianism, which seem to be your fallback in every disagreement you have with a person, I don't see any argument about this issue. Do you care to try once more?As I have said numerous times in this discussion since the beginning, if there was some information in this memo that clearly showed the SWP was lying about its intentions or trying to attack or poach from other groups or destroy a coalition, that would be vital information. Personally I would not leak it to the internet, I would confront them and the people they were doing the underhanded shit to. Since this is a memo about their recruitment, a task which is an OPEN and NON-HIDDEN goal of theirs, what is the use of this leak? The only possible benefit is to internet trolls basically or people who wish to make their recruitment seem sinister.

So, what is so vital in this memo? Again, were you not aware that the SWP wants to recruit people?

And the fact that the memo was released by "SWPwatch" should clue you into the sectarian intentions of the people who leaked it. The sectarian aspect is not really an open question, they obviously have an axe to grind and that is their goal, not transparency.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 21:26

No, I was responding to your post and accusation that I my disgust with the type and manner of attack was only partisan. So I was explaining why I do get upset when people make less than forthright criticisms of the ISO. If someone said, for example, I disagree with the idea of "state-capitalism" or I disagree with the idea of selling papers, that's fine and I don't write that person off. But if, instead, they say, "The ISO is only interested in making money" then that's it, there's no use in actually having a discussion at that point.

As I have said numerous times in this discussion since the beginning, if there was some information in this memo that clearly showed the SWP was lying about its intentions or trying to attack or poach from other groups or destroy a coalition, that would be vital information. Personally I would not leak it to the internet, I would confront them and the people they were doing the underhanded shit to. Since this is a memo about their recruitment, a task which is an OPEN and NON-HIDDEN goal of theirs, what is the use of this leak? The only possible benefit is to internet trolls basically or people who wish to make their recruitment seem sinister.

So, what is so vital in this memo? Again, were you not aware that the SWP wants to recruit people?

And the fact that the memo was released by "SWPwatch" should clue you into the sectarian intentions of the people who leaked it. The sectarian aspect is not really an open question, they obviously have an axe to grind and that is their goal, not transparency.

I note that you cannot name a single specific criticism you've ever made of the ISO or the SWP. I'll leave it for others to decide whether this has any relationship to your ...errm.. principled objection to this leak.

As for your attempt to construct an argument, I'll just repeat what I said earlier. The intentions of the people leaking the information are completely and totally irrelevant to the issue of whether public has a legitimate reason to know how the SWP is attempting to recruit them. In fact, your later qualifier, implying that the leak might have been justified if the SWP were caught deliberately deceiving people, contradicts your insistence on making the intentions of the leakers the primary issue of the discussion (isn't the leak still "sectarian" and therefore condemnable even if the SWP is caught deceiving people?).

The most odd part of your post is the suggestion that leak reveals literally nothing that isn't already known. But if that's the case, why are you so upset about it? If there's nothing new in here, it's not really a leak -- just the republication of publicly available information.

graymouser

15th November 2011, 21:32

So you have people each month collecting money, spending political time checking members and hunting them down for payment? Do you break their knees if they don't pay up? I'm not being serious of course, but that's the kind of things people would say if the SWP did things this way. It's not really about paying dues or having direct deposit - really it's just people don't like X organization and want to raise suspicion in the most unpolitical and weaselly ways.

That assumes 1) that we have retention problems which is not the case though it has been at different times in the past when there was more campus branches; people graduate, move away. On top of that were some internal organizing issues that we debated and corrected, IMO, in a positive way and then there's the general issues of retention problems for left-wing in general - most of the coalitions I was involved in had retention problems and activists did not go from one movement to the next through a lot of the past decade. Besides I think the retention issue is over-stated by other groups - RevLeft has a much higher turn-over rate that the ISO by a long-shot :D 2) You assume we don't want or don't care if we win people to building the group and basic political agreement. This is just your personal prejudice, not a political argument let alone "fact". There are political reasons for people to be in this group or that, but harping on direct deposit which is just one method for doing what all these groups do anyway seems weak and not very upfront about the real political differences which are really why people support this group or that. 3) You don't have to direct deposit - we just recommend it because it helps planning for things if you have a roughly fixed level of dues coming in and frankly having to have a treasurer and someone checking up to make sure dues are being collected is a pain in the ass and a waste of time if it can just be done automatically.

I'd rather people just set their dues lower if they don't think they can do a high amount each month, having a set level of dues just cuts out a lot of non-political work that would have to be done. The point isn't to create hardships, people pay the minimum or don't pay all the time when they are having problems - the important thing is that they are building movements and the group itself, money is part of that but we're never going to have enough money, actual organizers and activists are much more important.
What a weird response. You start off asking if we are "breaking [members'] knees" - sarcastically of course - but if that question is a serious one I'm honestly a bit puzzled. Members of Socialist Action are at some point responsible for paying their dues; if they fail they go out of good standing, and are eventually removed from membership.

The point about direct debit is something that was very offputting to me about my experience in the ISO. I found it to be a bureaucratized group that rushed members into a lot of activity, with a very limited political understanding on the part of the rank and file. The politics seemed to be something learned like a catechism, where each question has a pat response. Actual political thought came from Chicago and there was no serious questioning the wisdom thus received. Even in the pre-convention discussion, most of the contributions from the ranks were activity reports, and none were substantial political discussion on the period or tasks. Direct debit was a particularly glaring reflection to me of the group as a whole.

I have substantial political differences with the ISO, of course; I'm in Socialist Action (very different from Socialist Alternative, thank you very much) rather than the ISO for significant reasons. But even if I didn't disagree politically with the ISO and were a member I would be agitating for serious organizational reform within the group, and I suspect I would find myself outside of it on those grounds.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 21:40

I note that you cannot name a single specific criticism you've ever made of the ISO or the SWP. I'll leave it for others to decide whether this has any relationship to your ...errm.. principled objection to this leak.And you wonder why I doubt you are interested in a real debate.

And why have you not answered my questions to you?

As for your attempt to construct argument, :rolleyes:

I'll just repeat what I said earlier. The intentions of the people leaking the information are completely and totally irrelevant to the issue of whether public has a legitimate reason to know how the SWP is attempting to recruit them. Then this memo is useless for that since it is only a memo on numbers etc, not an arguement for how or why to recruit people.

In fact, your later qualifier, implying that the leak might have been justified if the SWP were caught deliberately deceiving people, contradicts your insistence on making the intentions of the leakers the primary issue of the discussion (isn't the leak still "sectarian" axe grinding even if the SWP is caught deceiving people?).If there was something underhanded that the memo showed, then it could be important for people being effected by it to know. If the SWP was trying to poach from another group and someone accidentally found out, then I'd hope they'd inform that group on the basis of solidarity. But none of that is here, it's a progress report on their recruitment attempt. So why leak this to the public? Like I said, the OP's "they're coming to get you" shows exactly the type of response I think the leakers were hoping to cause - make a dull bureaucratic report seem sinister.

What do you think was their motivation?

As to the identity and motivation for the leak - how the hell is that NOT relevant. Does your dislike for this group make you that blind? The US military leaked information today that Iran was

The most odd part of your post is the suggestion that leak reveals literally nothing that isn't already known. But if that's the case, why are you so upset about it? If there's nothing new in here, it's not really a leak -- just the republication of publicly available information.I have said over and over and over again what I think is wrong, that it is an underhanded and indirect attack because it attempts to make the group seem sinister like "they are coming to get you" when in fact it is just some dumb internal memo. And again really the most useful comment about it politically were some suggestions that their methods are too top-down and goals not really connected to anything real.

I don't care what group is targeted, I care that people on the left act like unprincipled bourgeois politicians rather than trying to put out forthright arguments so that workers can make their own decisions.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 21:41

The politics seemed to be something learned like a catechism, where each question has a pat response.

I have no idea of whether, or the extent to which, this is true of the ISO. But what I find interesting here is that JH seems to take this approach to his disagreements on this forum. No matter what the disagreement is about, he tries to spin it into being about one of the issues he has pat responses for (eg sectarianism, etc.). The result is an experience you'd expect to have in the Twilight Zone, where you think you're making perfectly simple and valid points, but where the responses are non sequitors.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 21:54

What a weird response. You start off asking if we are "breaking [members'] knees" - sarcastically of course - but if that question is a serious one I'm honestly a bit puzzled. Members of Socialist Action are at some point responsible for paying their dues; if they fail they go out of good standing, and are eventually removed from membership.Wow, missed the point entirely. My point was that if it wasn't direct deposit, then any other method used by the SWP would still be criticized because a lot of people on this website don't like them.

The point about direct debit is something that was very offputting to me about my experience in the ISO. Then why did you go on it? We suggest it for the political reasons I already stated and many members of my branch don't use it for various reasons.

I found it to be a bureaucratized group that rushed members into a lot of activity, with a very limited political understanding on the part of the rank and file.

The politics seemed to be something learned like a catechism, where each question has a pat response. Actual political thought came from Chicago and there was no serious questioning the wisdom thus received. Even in the pre-convention discussion, most of the contributions from the ranks were activity reports, and none were substantial political discussion on the period or tasks. Direct debit was a particularly glaring reflection to me of the group as a whole.This is not my experience at all, I've written many documents and been on the loosing end of many debates and discussions and won others. I've never had any problems with dues I've never had anyone pressure me into paying them a certain way. I've had some comrades who are more moralistic about activism and not that I've gained some more political experience I can spot that and call it out, but that's not systematic, that just the fact that all organizations are just groups of people with strengths and weaknesses.

I have substantial political differences with the ISO, of course; I'm in Socialist Action (very different from Socialist Alternative, thank you very much) rather than the ISO for significant reasons. But even if I didn't disagree politically with the ISO and were a member I would be agitating for serious organizational reform within the group, and I suspect I would find myself outside of it on those grounds.Baseless speculation and suspect all you want but you are wrong. 2 of our main national members have alternative views of the USSR than state-capitalism, they hold that view still but argue for the ISO's position because that is the position we currently have. They also try and agitate for alternatives. There was a great deal of disagreement on many votes including on the Green party and one side one for a while and the minority fought and were proven correct in practice and these debates and decisions resulted in no one getting kicked out.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 21:56

And you wonder why I doubt you are interested in a real debate.

And why have you not answered my questions to you?

You have things absolutely backwards. I am interested in actually debating issues, of forming my own judgment about issues, groups, and people, and explaining why I formed those judgments. In my many posts on this forum, I have both praised and criticized both the SWP and the ISO. And if you doubt this, I can quote from specific posts of mine where I have done this. To name just one example, in the thread I started about the latest issue of the ISR, I heaped significant praise on the SWP's theoretical journal. An odd thing for me to do about a group you accuse me of "hating so much."

You, however, seem to think that if anybody criticizes the ISO, no matter how much they might praise it in other contexts, then they must not have an interest in participating in a real discussion. I guess Marx was uninterested in having a real discussion about capitalism since he condemned it routinely. If that's not the case, and you concede that people can make legitimate criticisms, why don't you do us all a favor and name a SINGLE criticism of the ISO that you consider legitimate? Otherwise the only logical conclusion to reach is that you think there are no legitimate criticisms to be made of the SWP or ISO, and that all the criticisms are fueled by lies and sectarianism. I'm sure, M&E, Lenin, and Trotsky would all be weeping with pride and gratitude if they were alive to see that the ISO and SWP represent flawless achievements of socialist politics.

Then this memo is useless for that since it is only a memo on numbers etc, not an arguement for how or why to recruit people.

If there was something underhanded that the memo showed, then it could be important for people being effected by it to know. If the SWP was trying to poach from another group and someone accidentally found out, then I'd hope they'd inform that group on the basis of solidarity. But none of that is here, it's a progress report on their recruitment attempt. So why leak this to the public? Like I said, the OP's "they're coming to get you" shows exactly the type of response I think the leakers were hoping to cause - make a dull bureaucratic report seem sinister.Let's say that the leaked document does show that the SWP is trying to "poach" (as you call it) from other groups. Does that mean that the leaker then, by definition, can't be acting for "sectarian" purposes? If the leaker is acting because of sectarian interests (let's say he wants to embarrass the SWP), then is the leak showing wrongdoing still justified? If so, how can you then pretend that intentions are the most important consideration for characterizing the value of the leak under discussion? Either sectarianism is a sufficient reason for condemning the leak, or it's not. Make up your mind.

What do you think was their motivation? As to the identity and motivation for the leak - how the hell is that NOT relevant. Does your dislike for this group make you that blind?I've explained it repeatedly. We are judging and talking about the legitimacy of the act, not the intentions behind the act. You seem to want to make this all about intentions -- as though the act is horrible because it was supposedly done for sectarian reasons. But then in the next breath, you claim that, if the leak showed substantial wrongdoing or deception by the SWP, the intentions of the leakers don't matter.

So perhaps you can ask yourself why the intentions matter or don't matter, since you seem to be confused.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 22:02

I have no idea of whether, or the extent to which, this is true of the ISO. But what I find interesting here is that JH seems to take this approach to his disagreements on this forum. No matter what the disagreement is about, he tries to spin it into being about one of the issues he has pat responses for (eg sectarianism, etc.). The result is an experience you'd expect to have in the Twilight Zone, where you think you're making perfectly simple and valid points, but where the responses are non sequitors.
I have two people throwing unprovable accusations at me about the group I'm in and then think I'm hallucinating being attacked and having mud slung at my organization.:rolleyes:

This is just the usual RevLeft bash-fest. Get back to me when you can debate politics rather than throw around suspicions about the ISO stealing an extra month of dues or hypothetically throwing you out for having political disagreements.

RedTrackWorker

15th November 2011, 22:04

Jimmie Higgins wants to reference COINTELPRO...hell, why would the government need cointelpro if all revolutionaries have DIRECT FUCKING DEPOSIT to a bank?

See:

The real problem with direct debit is that it displays a touching faith in the bankers not giving all your info to the government

On an unrelated note:

There was a great deal of disagreement on many votes including on the Green party and one side one for a while and the minority fought and were proven correct in practice and these debates and decisions resulted in no one getting kicked out.

(Which minority was proven correct?)
Most importantly, was this minority position being "proven correct in practice" ever written up for political discussion so that the class can learn from that debate?

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 22:09

I have two people throwing unprovable accusations at me about the group I'm in and then think I'm hallucinating being attacked and having mud slung at my organization.:rolleyes:

This is just the usual RevLeft bash-fest. Get back to me when you can debate politics rather than throw around suspicions about the ISO stealing an extra month of dues or hypothetically throwing you out for having political disagreements.

Name a single accusation I have made against the ISO in this thread. If you can't, it seems you are the one making the baseless accusations.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 22:12

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 22:13

Wow, yeah. None of you guys have sectarian motives.

How'd this become about the ISO - oh yeah because you are all really interested in honest open debate of politics, not attacking groups you disagree with.:rolleyes:

I am still waiting to see evidence that I have made accusations against the ISO on this thread.

If you can't provide any examples, I suggest you apologize for your baseless accusations.

Tim Finnegan

15th November 2011, 22:15

I misread the title as "SWP's internal bullshit leaked". Inadvertent accuracy ftw? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

RedTrackWorker

15th November 2011, 22:16

By the way, I basically agree with the most abstract version of Jimmie Higgin's point on the memo, which I would put as:
The socialist workers' movement would be a better place if stuff like this leak didn't happen. If you want respectful, clarifying debate about the big questions, as a rule, publishing internal stuff from another group isn't going to help that.

This particular piece looks even more sensational when taken out of context and seems intentionally done so--in other words, it's not clarifying anything, it's more gossip-rag-ish. Which is not to suggest I think it'd look much better in context, I don't.

But again, the most revealing information to me in it was something widely known on the left already, that the SWP-UK and the ISO use direct deposit. I think it's highly irresponsible to encourage people to link their personal bank accounts to a socialist organization. That kind of "information sharing" is much worse than this particular leaked bulletin, which has no such personal information in it.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 22:20

I am still waiting to see evidence that I have made accusations against the ISO on this thread.

If you can't provide any examples, I suggest you apologize for your baseless accusations.

I'm sorry you have only made accusations of the ISO in other threads such as the one where you "heap praise" on the ISR. Of course the point of that thread you started was to accuse the ISO of supporting liberalism because the ISR published an article about the Civil War from someone who is a social-democrat. If you wanted to know what the ISO thought socialism looked like, you could have asked me directly or gone to any number of articles that explicitly give our view of that, not try and conflate our views with someone we published. Mostly this time you refuse to debate my points or answer my questions and keep attacking my intentions - often in this really annoying way where you don't address me specifically.

I was specifically referencing Greymouser who suggested:

1) that the ISO intentionally steals an extra months worth of dues from people
2) that if he hypothetically tried to promote a debate on organization or raise a political question that he would have been expelled.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 22:23

So JH wants to claim that making criticisms of the ISO doesn't exclude one from participating in a civil, substantive discussion. But then he can't name a single instance where a criticism of the ISO was legitimate, and could therefore be a part of a civil, substantive discusssion.

Just as JH wants to claim that this thread is about sectarians making baseless accusations against the ISO, then can't show where I have made a single accusation about the ISO on this thread.

Yes, somebody here is making baseless assertions all right.

black magick hustla

15th November 2011, 22:23

anyone wants to build the Party with me we need to set up funds cuz booze and mdma is kinda expensive but we can party alllllllll night

spread anarchy live communism

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 22:26

By the way, I basically agree with the most abstract version of Jimmie Higgin's point on the memo, which I would put as:
The socialist workers' movement would be a better place if stuff like this leak didn't happen. If you want respectful, clarifying debate about the big questions, as a rule, publishing internal stuff from another group isn't going to help that.

This particular piece looks even more sensational when taken out of context and seems intentionally done so--in other words, it's not clarifying anything, it's more gossip-rag-ish. Which is not to suggest I think it'd look much better in context, I don't.

Christ, thank you for that at least. I thought I was going insane or speaking Latin or something.

Lucretia

15th November 2011, 22:31

Of course the point of that thread you started was to accuse the ISO of supporting liberalism because the ISR published an article about the Civil War from someone who is a social-democrat.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of my criticisms of the Nichols argument in that (a) I never said that the ISO supported liberalism, only that it was providing a platform for liberal ideas and writings in its periodical, and (b) my criticism of the article was based on its content, not on how the author of the article identified politically.

And in that same thread, I said that the ISO's bi-monthly periodical pales in comparison to what I considered the SWP's far superior, and very valuable, theoretical journal. It just proves my point that I do not hate either the SWP or the ISO. I criticize these groups, just as I criticize people, when I think they are making mistakes. I praise them when they do good things.

If you wanted to know what the ISO thought socialism looked like, you could have asked me directly or gone to any number of articles that explicitly give our view of that, not try and conflate our views with someone we published. Mostly this time you refuse to debate my points or answer my questions and keep attacking my intentions - often in this really annoying way where you don't address me specifically.This is yet another nonsequitor. Where in the world did I say I wanted to know more about the ISO's or SWP's vision of socialism. I know what their visions are, and by and large, I agree with those visions. What you are responding to is my criticism of *your attitude* toward the ISO, manifested on this forum, which seems to be that the group is incapable of making mistakes worthy of criticism. Now, you've never stated this, but you've never been able to single out even a single instance of where a criticism of the ISO was actually legitimate, not just baseless speculative sectarianism.

This is YOUR attitude and does not represent the ISO in any way.

graymouser

15th November 2011, 23:35

I was specifically referencing Greymouser who suggested:

1) that the ISO intentionally steals an extra months worth of dues from people
2) that if he hypothetically tried to promote a debate on organization or raise a political question that he would have been expelled.
I didn't say that the ISO intentionally steals anything, just that it's rather unsavory that their setup and that of the UK SWP does wind up with that result and that I dislike the practice for this reason.

You can go on and on about how the ISO has a certain level of formal democracy, and formally you'd be right. But the truth is, just last year there were a number of expulsions or pressured resignationss of opposition members of the ISO, who were critical of the organizational structure. (Revleft thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/recent-expulsions-iso-t139791/index.html?t=139791).) I don't expect that I'd fare any better.

A Marxist Historian

16th November 2011, 00:05

Jimmie Higgins wants to reference COINTELPRO...hell, why would the government need cointelpro if all revolutionaries have DIRECT FUCKING DEPOSIT to a bank?

See:

On an unrelated note:

(Which minority was proven correct?)
Most importantly, was this minority position being "proven correct in practice" ever written up for political discussion so that the class can learn from that debate?

Now, that, i.e. discussions within the ISO or SWP about attitude to the Green Party, would be much more interesting than this basically tiresome discussion of trivia.

Judging by the discussion, this was a remarkably boring internal bulletin, of no great interest to anyone not a member of the IST.

-M.H.-

Jimmie Higgins

16th November 2011, 09:05

I didn't say that the ISO intentionally steals anything, just that it's rather unsavory that their setup and that of the UK SWP does wind up with that result and that I dislike the practice for this reason.Really, ok. Well I got the impression that you think the ISO intentionally steals a month of dues when you said:

It also leads to the exact problem I had - where people wind up making an "extra" dues payment on leaving, which frankly I think is intentional.

And again when you said this:

it's a bit shady (to say the least) to set up your dues structure so you get a "free" month or so from people who leave your organization.

So when people say things like this - then even deny that they were making the suggestion in the first place, it makes me feel a little crazy and get defensive. Anyway, if I have been defensive and my style polarizing, I apologize. There is no use in having a debate about speculation of this sort, and whenever I try to explain the political reasoning behind something like direct deposit (i.e. it just eliminates some necessary but bureaucratic work on the part of our members while also allowing us to know what to expect in funds in a more predictable way) some other vague suggestion or charge pops up and so I get frustrated because I am not really interested in these kinds of discussions about my group or other groups in the first place, but feel attacked and need to defend my positions and defend against some of these suggestions.

Marxist Historian's concern may be a valid point, but considering all the email lists I'm on and so on, I don't think that any agency trying to tie me to a group would find it difficult even without direct deposit... which, ironically, I am not on because I changed banks a while ago and have been too busy/lazy to fill out the paperwork. However, I don't see how writing a check would be any different or any less of a direct connection.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that, if I pissed anyone off, I apologize, but these kinds of threads just piss me off because they just degenerate really quickly and loose any political content.

RedTrackWorker

16th November 2011, 13:01

Marxist Historian's concern may be a valid point, but considering all the email lists I'm on and so on, I don't think that any agency trying to tie me to a group would find it difficult even without direct deposit... which, ironically, I am not on because I changed banks a while ago and have been too busy/lazy to fill out the paperwork. However, I don't see how writing a check would be any different or any less of a direct connection.

Writing a check isn't different.

Email lists are not necessarily the same as having a bank connection (which means connections to your social security number) to a socialist organization. If you have an email clearly linked to your social security number on an email list that is not just about socialist/left politics but is an organizational affiliation, I think that's a very bad thing to encourage people to do.

Obviously certain comrades like myself--at least at certain times--are publicly identified as supporting the organization due to union activity or what have you, but to encourage doing such as a standard organizational practice is I think very irresponsible on the part of the ISO, SWP and whomever else might do so.

Also, the question isn't just an abstract one of "tieing" you to a group. It would probably be easy for instance for most of us using this forum to be tied to revolutionary politics in general, but unless bourgeois law in the U.S. is completely suspended, there are certain legal obstacles to political persecution and not having a definite and obvious membership in a socialist organization might be a useful legal hurdle to make them climb at some point, rather than saying, "Here's a list of social security numbers of everyone in our organization--and everyone who was ever in our organization."

Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that, if I pissed anyone off, I apologize, but these kinds of threads just piss me off because they just degenerate really quickly and loose any political content.

You don't have to respond to such stuff. In the ISR thread I ignored most (or maybe all, I can't remember) of your comrade andrewsplane's critiques of the LRP and tried to keep focus on the issues at hand. It's an internet forum--if people make baseless charges most people can see it as such so just ignore it.

On the other hand, on issues of substance, I'd like to hear about this minority being proven correct thing on the Green Party. Isn't that an issue of substance the workers' movement as a whole should be hearing about from the ISO?

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th November 2011, 14:44

I guess it does operate like any other business if businesses are dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and self-emancipation of the working class from below.

So you claim. A lot of groups do that though. There's a whole cottage industry of leftists groups, cottage industries, sects, cults, etc. The question isn't even really their proclaimed politics or what's even in their individual hearts and minds, but the social reality of their existence.

Take union bureaucrats as an example. Most of them don't sign up with some plans of "making it big" as a union hot shot. But there are certain realities of the position.

"Full-time status for the union committeeman, which began as a means of freeing the union representative from the pressures of management, became a means of freeing the representative from the pressure of the workers." - Martin Glaberman

Do you pay rent? Wow you must be like a petty bourgeois shop owner then.

Nah. 'Cause I don't have a business plan or quota, and I don't calculate quarterly earnings like your brethren across the pond.

Besides that's a shit political analysis - dues create the rift between rank and file and create an unaccountable labor bureaucracy... like money and power corrupts?

....

Um... yeah I don't think any organization could just take money out of people's bank accounts without convincing them that doing so is worthwhile.

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Militants historically argued against dues checkoff i.e. dues that come out of your paycheck automatically. That's what I'm talking about here. And that's the reality of being in a union.

I think the separation probably has more to do with the class position of the labor leadership which in nature fence-sits between capital and labor and needs both in order to maintain it's position.

What class are bureaucrats that make their living managing unions?

As I said before - not that the actual political issues matters to you - I think direct deposit is a good way to handle dues so that activists don't have to do the mechanical treasury tasks as much and can do more valuable things with their time. No one is forced to have direct deposit and no one is forced to even pay the suggested income-based dues. Convincing people that it's worth it is the only thing that will work.

You know who else thinks direct withdraw is a good idea? Utilities, that way they can deduct your bills from your account without having to ask you to pay. Also prevents people from delaying payments or not making them at all because of an inability to pay!

You know who else? Internet scam companies that sneak to set up small direct withdraws when you purchase stuff at certain websites, then make it incredibly difficult to cancel.

The Cliffites are in good company!

Now tell us, how would your organization handle these issues?

I don't know if you have a bad memory, are purposely being ignorant, or are asking rhetorically, but I've been arguing against permanent "mass" organizations here for quite some time; including in discussions with you; including with links to things I've written in support of my position.

Hit The North

16th November 2011, 15:10

Writing a check isn't different.

So you're either advocating purely cash payment or no payment at all?

Obviously certain comrades like myself--at least at certain times--are publicly identified as supporting the organization due to union activity or what have you, but to encourage doing such as a standard organizational practice is I think very irresponsible on the part of the ISO, SWP and whomever else might do so.

Also, the question isn't just an abstract one of "tieing" you to a group. It would probably be easy for instance for most of us using this forum to be tied to revolutionary politics in general, but unless bourgeois law in the U.S. is completely suspended, there are certain legal obstacles to political persecution and not having a definite and obvious membership in a socialist organization might be a useful legal hurdle to make them climb at some point, rather than saying, "Here's a list of social security numbers of everyone in our organization--and everyone who was ever in our organization."
The above strikes me as a little ridiculous. Are you suggesting that in normal periods of bourgeois rule the communists should act in a clandestine manner? If the pigs want to know who the activists are they have many more means at their disposal than relying on bank details. Besides, at the moment there is no reason for revolutionaries to hide their identities or their views from the public in the USA or in Europe, as the bourgeois state is not attempting to violently repress us. Meanwhile, a socialist who is not known as a socialist inside their union, is not doing their job properly. We should be out and proud.

The fact is that the SWP has made a determination that the organisational benefits of having members on direct debit outweighs the slim dangers. Presumably, the same determination has been made by those members who pay their dues in this way. Because there is a choice: you can pay by cash into your local branch instead, which is how I paid my dues until recently because I didn't have a bank account when I first joined.

EnragÃ©

16th November 2011, 15:28

Ofcourse you need money to make newspapers, ofcourse you need money to keep your organisation going. That however isnt the point, isnt the problem.

The problem is, as some others have noticed, a very quantitative look on the building of a revolutionary organisation. Succes is measured by amounts of new members (and new members paying direct debit), amounts of subscriptions and papers sold, amounts of contacts gained. Together with the fact that selling newspapers is at the core of active membership, this creates a certain type of organisation.

It is completely unavoidable that the cultural aspects of this type of organisation, created by or at the very least heavily influenced by the material practice of the organisation (and the way it sets goals etc), begins to take on those elements which are most useful for applying this material and goal-setting practice. That is, a management culture. It is simply the most efficient. As noxion said, 'nice business plan'. These cultural aspects then reflect back on the material aspects of the organisation, which creates a sort of feedback loop.

I used to be in the dutch IST which is many, many times smaller but you could still see this tendency. It is one of the main reasons i left (another is that the practice of the organisation is thoroughly uninspiring, which reflects the neglect of qualitative aspects of organisation building). And I imagine that in a bigger organisation its alot worse.

I would advocate a more qualitative outlook, based on the measure of (self)organisation. Instead of winning members, try to encourage your contacts to start organising themselves, with eachother, and offer your support in doing so. At the same time make clear they are very welcome to join your organisation as well, either as a group, or as an individual. Moreover, you dont set quota, you just try the best you can and try to create the circumstances under which others try the best they can/are inspired to try the best they can.

Dont treat the members of the organisation like a boss treats his workers, treat them like comrades, friends (cuz thats what they are!). It is the oppression and exploitation of boss and state that we are trying to break, the reason for which we join revolutionary organisations! If we treat the excruciatingly few who have made the decision to put themselves at odds with the current state of things, and argue as well as act for the demolition of bourgeois power, if we treat them them even remotely similar to how the bourgeois treat them, we are destroying any chance of building a large and stable revolutionary organisation! In my time in the IS i heard people talk alot of times about there being no short-cuts to succes, that we had to slowly build the organisation etc. Well, i think the over-emphasis on numbers is exactly this failing 'short-cut'. 2000 new members? What? How many will still be members next year? How many will become and stay active? How many will drop out, bitter and desillusioned?

The Dutch anarchist Free Union (Vrije Bond) seems to have had quite a bit of succes in simply trying to inspire people to organise, and as a result it has grown over the last year whereas the dutch IST saw the collapse of their Rotterdam branch ('revolving door') and the splitting away of their The Hague branch (going on to form 'Marxist Initiative The Hague'). That said, the IS remains the biggest and most organised revolutionary left organisation in the Netherlands, and has seen their Amsterdam branch strengthened.

Anyway, i still wish the IST lots of luck, regardless of internal problems and disagreements i have with them. And, it is not like the 'management culture' runs unopposed by members inside of (at least the dutch) IST, the feedback loop is always attempted to be broken. Not to mention that it is not like (at least the dutch) IST's leadership are counter-revolutionary bastards (on the contrary) - it's just that their method of organisation has some very nasty side-effects. Its materialism, y'know.

Lucretia

16th November 2011, 15:58

What is this that people keep saying about the green party?

Anarchostalinist

16th November 2011, 16:22

Trots lol - why do you lot take your selves so seriously? Nobody else does!

And the Greens are just a bunch of hippy liberals and eugenicists.

Icepicks all round :D

A Marxist Historian

17th November 2011, 00:09

So you claim. A lot of groups do that though. There's a whole cottage industry of leftists groups, cottage industries, sects, cults, etc. The question isn't even really their proclaimed politics or what's even in their individual hearts and minds, but the social reality of their existence.

Take union bureaucrats as an example. Most of them don't sign up with some plans of "making it big" as a union hot shot. But there are certain realities of the position.

"Full-time status for the union committeeman, which began as a means of freeing the union representative from the pressures of management, became a means of freeing the representative from the pressure of the workers." - Martin Glaberman

Nah. 'Cause I don't have a business plan or quota, and I don't calculate quarterly earnings like your brethren across the pond.

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Militants historically argued against dues checkoff i.e. dues that come out of your paycheck automatically. That's what I'm talking about here. And that's the reality of being in a union.

What class are bureaucrats that make their living managing unions?

You know who else thinks direct withdraw is a good idea? Utilities, that way they can deduct your bills from your account without having to ask you to pay. Also prevents people from delaying payments or not making them at all because of an inability to pay!

You know who else? Internet scam companies that sneak to set up small direct withdraws when you purchase stuff at certain websites, then make it incredibly difficult to cancel.

The Cliffites are in good company!

I don't know if you have a bad memory, are purposely being ignorant, or are asking rhetorically, but I've been arguing against permanent "mass" organizations here for quite some time; including in discussions with you; including with links to things I've written in support of my position.

I agree with you totally about dues checkoff, in fact my old union was one of the very few that didn't have it, and that was one fight in my union, that kept coming up, that the left always managed to win. Indeed, one of my main roles was as collector of voluntary donations for our labor support committee, something I'm proud to say I was rather good at.

But, if you are against permanent "mass" organizations, well, that's what unions are. You aren't really against unions, are you? Like one of those "hipsters"?

-M.H.-

RedTrackWorker

17th November 2011, 13:18

Are you suggesting that in normal periods of bourgeois rule the communists should act in a clandestine manner? If the pigs want to know who the activists are they have many more means at their disposal than relying on bank details. [snip] Meanwhile, a socialist who is not known as a socialist inside their union, is not doing their job properly. We should be out and proud.

I did not say we should be clandestine. I said if possible you do not want to link your personal identity to membership in a socialist organization through things like direct deposit. I also noted that yes, they have plenty of other means of identifying people but that can present certain legal obstacles to potential repression.

Further, in regard to your union question I cannot understand it at all as
1. In the part you quoted I said: "publicly identified as supporting the organization due to union activity", i.e. there's a necessary compromise (given the currently prevailing conditions).
2. More generally, my signature links to a revolutionary bulletin for my workplace, which includes election leaflets that openly argue for socialism (but do not argue that one has to be a socialist to vote for us)--and whenever I've requested the ISO produce material showing them putting forward union material that is openly socialist not only have I never been shown such material but I've been mocked at their conferences for suggesting such material should exist. As far as I know, they put at Socialist Worker on the one hand and "nobody here but us good unionists" leaflets on the other (for instance, in CTU, SEIU 1021, etc.). If you think that's equivalent to being "out and proud"...ok.

A Marxist Historian

17th November 2011, 20:12

So you're either advocating purely cash payment or no payment at all?

The above strikes me as a little ridiculous. Are you suggesting that in normal periods of bourgeois rule the communists should act in a clandestine manner? If the pigs want to know who the activists are they have many more means at their disposal than relying on bank details. Besides, at the moment there is no reason for revolutionaries to hide their identities or their views from the public in the USA or in Europe, as the bourgeois state is not attempting to violently repress us. Meanwhile, a socialist who is not known as a socialist inside their union, is not doing their job properly. We should be out and proud.

The fact is that the SWP has made a determination that the organisational benefits of having members on direct debit outweighs the slim dangers. Presumably, the same determination has been made by those members who pay their dues in this way. Because there is a choice: you can pay by cash into your local branch instead, which is how I paid my dues until recently because I didn't have a bank account when I first joined.

Well, as far as I'm concerned the ISO and the SWP can do this anyway they want, and if you're not a member of said groups it's really none of your business in the last analysis.

But, speaking in general terms, I think direct deposit is a bad idea, but paying by check is a different matter. Is that traceable too? Well, yes, but definitely less easily. Direct deposit the FBI gets everything they want to know with one mouse click, pay by check and they have to work for it.

And, of course, it's always possible to set up dummy checking accounts when things are getting nasty.

Pay by cash is only necessary if you have to go underground.

Anybody who thinks this is just paranoia should take a look at what has happened to (a) Wikileaks and (b) all sorts of Muslim and Palestinian organizations lately.

Especially after OWS, with the ruling class starting to pay more attention even to the white left, it's time to start being careful.

-M.H.-

chegitz guevara

18th November 2011, 23:55

Why would any organization think publishing another group's internal bulletin was a good idea, instead of contacting the organization, explaining how you got it, and returning or destroying any copies you had?

Seriously, people, really?

And fucking shame on the person doing pig work by reposting it here.

EnragÃ©

19th November 2011, 19:44

because they think the internal bulletin illustrates a side of an organisation which is usually not seen or even denied, and because they think it is exactly that side of that organisation which is so characteristic of the organisation as a whole.

Not to mention
because they think the organisations sucks.

Its not that strange chegitz. Whether or not it is correct, is a different story. Im ambivalent on that. But it does illustrate a rather characteristic side to the IST.

The Idler

19th November 2011, 19:57

EnragÃ©

19th November 2011, 19:59

^which, ofcourse, they dont, because it looks too much like a BUSINESS plan. We all know that alot of people hate their jobs, so why would they make their life worse by getting a job at the SWP?

Lucretia

19th November 2011, 20:50

Jose Gracchus

19th November 2011, 21:06

How many 'socialist groups' have a plausibly convincing reason to have many internal bulletins? Secrecy is a means to an end, not a virtue as such. Protecting a business plan from scrutiny does not seem to be something we have feel too guilty about deflating.

19th November 2011, 21:09

Can you name a single socialist group that publishes publicly its internal bulletins?

The CPGB (like here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004616) and here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004621) is a recent report on their internal aggregate meeting; in the second article Mark Fisher is quoted as saying: "Comrade Mark Fisher also led a discussion about the need to establish a “culture of security” in our organisation and on the left generally. However, paradoxical though it might appear, our politics, including political differences, should be totally open." - I thought that was a pretty relevant point to this thread) and I believe the Commune group does as well.

The Idler

19th November 2011, 21:40

The CPGB (like here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004616) and here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004621) is a recent report on their internal aggregate meeting; in the second article Mark Fisher is quoted as saying: "Comrade Mark Fisher also led a discussion about the need to establish a “culture of security” in our organisation and on the left generally. However, paradoxical though it might appear, our politics, including political differences, should be totally open." - I thought that was a pretty relevant point to this thread) and I believe the Commune group does as well.
I think the SPGB makes that at least 3 socialist groups who publish internal documents in Britain alone.

Hit The North

20th November 2011, 17:27

The CPGB (like here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004616) and here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004621) is a recent report on their internal aggregate meeting; in the second article Mark Fisher is quoted as saying: "Comrade Mark Fisher also led a discussion about the need to establish a “culture of security” in our organisation and on the left generally. However, paradoxical though it might appear, our politics, including political differences, should be totally open." - I thought that was a pretty relevant point to this thread) and I believe the Commune group does as well.

Those links are to reports on the aggregate meeting in the pages of the party's paper, and this is not the same as publishing an internal document. Any organisation has the right to have internal dialogue through the circulation of internal documents. It may then decide to publish the results of that conversation but this is not equivalent to having the actual conversation leaked by a third party.

20th November 2011, 18:47

Those links are to reports on the aggregate meeting in the pages of the party's paper, and this is not the same as publishing an internal document. Any organisation has the right to have internal dialogue through the circulation of internal documents. It may then decide to publish the results of that conversation but this is not equivalent to having the actual conversation leaked by a third party.

The reports on the aggregate meetings are often having a verbatim nature ("A says this", "B contents that", "C disagrees with A and B", etc). This is indeed very much like the Internal Bulletin in that it reports on political debates (as a matter of fact, I've often seen letters/articles attacking the reporter if they felt they had been misquoted or simply continue the debate). The difference indeed is that the CPGB does publish them in the Weekly Worker, the SWP does not do anything similar in their Socialist Worker.

Hit The North

20th November 2011, 22:28

The difference indeed is that the CPGB does publish them in the Weekly Worker, the SWP does not do anything similar in their Socialist Worker.

Yes, because the CPGB loves to talk about itself and the rest of the left whereas Socialist Worker prefers to write about the class struggle. And that is the crucial difference between the two organisations.

20th November 2011, 23:09

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 23:10

Yes, because the CPGB loves to talk about itself and the rest of the left whereas Socialist Worker prefers to write about the class struggle. And that is the crucial difference between the two organisations.
Speaking as a disinterested neutral party, I can quite honestly say that they are both about 80% wank. You can scrabble about the remaining 20%, but, really, try to keep that in mind.

The Idler

21st November 2011, 19:46

Hit The North

21st November 2011, 23:15

Should the class that the party represents (but are not members) have a right to access internal dialogue (that is not a security risk) of the party at the "heart of the struggle"?

I don't know if it should have the right (if by that you mean a legal right, as I'm unclear what other kind of "rights" might pertain here), but I know that it doesn't have the inclination.

The recruitment targets set by the SWP might be of great interest to the revolutionary train-spotters of the CPGB, and other leftists who are looking for a stick to beat the SWP with, but in the wider class who cares?

EDIT: But I'm curious to know whether you think that the working class members of the EDL or the BNP have the right to access the SWP's or any other socialist organisation's internal documents? How far does your "right" extend? Logically, if all our documents were open to the working class, they would also be open to the enemies of the working class. Or do you think the right should be restricted to individuals who can offer correct working class credentials?

Patchd

22nd November 2011, 07:35

Yes, because the CPGB loves to talk about itself and the rest of the left whereas Socialist Worker prefers to write about the class struggle. And that is the crucial difference between the two organisations.
Writing about the class struggle doesn't make you a good socialist. I'm sure you could find some bourgeois papers that 'write about the class struggle', surely the point is the position they take on such struggle and their programme for subsequent struggles. Socialist Worker/Socialist Review is the type of publication which called Nasser an anti-imperialist and hailed the Iranian theocracy amid calls from worker organisations inside Iran to do otherwise (before the uprising). Not very consistent with their support for the class struggle.

Hit The North

22nd November 2011, 10:48

Writing about the class struggle doesn't make you a good socialist. I'm sure you could find some bourgeois papers that 'write about the class struggle', surely the point is the position they take on such struggle and their programme for subsequent struggles.

Who's talking about what a "good socialist" is? I was referring to the orientations of the two papers and how this reflects on the organisations.

Socialist Worker/Socialist Review is the type of publication which called Nasser an anti-imperialist and hailed the Iranian theocracy amid calls from worker organisations inside Iran to do otherwise (before the uprising). Not very consistent with their support for the class struggle.

I refute your bullshit and challenge you to provide evidence of the SWP's so-called support for the Iranian theocracy.

The Idler

22nd November 2011, 22:51

I don't know if it should have the right (if by that you mean a legal right, as I'm unclear what other kind of "rights" might pertain here), but I know that it doesn't have the inclination.

The recruitment targets set by the SWP might be of great interest to the revolutionary train-spotters of the CPGB, and other leftists who are looking for a stick to beat the SWP with, but in the wider class who cares?

EDIT: But I'm curious to know whether you think that the working class members of the EDL or the BNP have the right to access the SWP's or any other socialist organisation's internal documents? How far does your "right" extend? Logically, if all our documents were open to the working class, they would also be open to the enemies of the working class. Or do you think the right should be restricted to individuals who can offer correct working class credentials?
To clarify, no-one's talking about legal rights. "Right" could mean in the same sense you use it "Any organisation has the right to have internal dialogue", but it might be simpler to say "have access to". Inclination is irrelevant here and a red herring, likewise its not just recruitment targets that are being leaked, Internal Bulletin covers broad party strategy.

Although you're dismissive of this openness, AWL, SPGB and CPGB all publish documents and communication from internal discussion on party strategy. With the exception of matters of member security, these reports have been published for years. If enemies of the working-class majority wish to access these (and the documents pose no security risk), they can do. Likewise if the working-class majority want to join a party that trusts and is accountable to the class then they will do.

Hit The North

23rd November 2011, 00:34

To clarify, no-one's talking about legal rights. "Right" could mean in the same sense you use it "Any organisation has the right to have internal dialogue", but it might be simpler to say "have access to". Inclination is irrelevant here and a red herring, likewise its not just recruitment targets that are being leaked, Internal Bulletin covers broad party strategy.

Although you're dismissive of this openness, AWL, SPGB and CPGB all publish documents and communication from internal discussion on party strategy. With the exception of matters of member security, these reports have been published for years. If enemies of the working-class majority wish to access these (and the documents pose no security risk), they can do. Likewise if the working-class majority want to join a party that trusts and is accountable to the class then they will do.

I'm not dismissive of openness, I'm wondering whether you think it is a principle that internal documents, every dot and comma, be published in the public domain?

But I'm also curious that you seem to be pursuing an agenda which seeks to paint the SWP as closed-off, secretive, somehow sinister in a way that is atypical of the left or at odds with good socialist praxis. However, the SWP also publishes accounts of its internal discussion such as this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13463) summary of the National Council's discussion of the crisis in RESPECT or this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23561), where the Socialist Worker trumpets the recruitment targets discussed in the infamous internal document :rolleyes:. And the SWP regularly publishes its party notes, highlighting its tactical and political priorities on the SWP website (http://www.swp.org.uk/party-notes). Are these not example of openness?

But maybe this doesn't satisfy you. Perhaps you're demanding a public audit of the minutes of every SWP national and regional meeting, perhaps every branch meeting, I dunno :confused:

The Idler

23rd November 2011, 21:19

I'm not dismissive of openness, I'm wondering whether you think it is a principle that internal documents, every dot and comma, be published in the public domain?

But I'm also curious that you seem to be pursuing an agenda which seeks to paint the SWP as closed-off, secretive, somehow sinister in a way that is atypical of the left or at odds with good socialist praxis. However, the SWP also publishes accounts of its internal discussion such as this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13463) summary of the National Council's discussion of the crisis in RESPECT or this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23561), where the Socialist Worker trumpets the recruitment targets discussed in the infamous internal document :rolleyes:. And the SWP regularly publishes its party notes, highlighting its tactical and political priorities on the SWP website (http://www.swp.org.uk/party-notes). Are these not example of openness?

But maybe this doesn't satisfy you. Perhaps you're demanding a public audit of the minutes of every SWP national and regional meeting, perhaps every branch meeting, I dunno :confused:
In principle, where there is no risk to security, any party representing the working-class should be accountable to the class by access to documents that are already published internally.

The short summaries of published internal discussion you point to, begs more questions than they answer. The national council of over 250 people discussing Respect Coalition reports the contributions of 1 EC member and 4 non-EC members. A similar minority voted against the statement or abstained. The reasons are omitted from the article.

The conference report from January 2011 reports even fewer contributions - 1 EC (nat sec) and 2 non-EC. No mention is made of attendance, or how many delegates were there to vote unanimously.

A edited version of Party Notes has been published online for about 2 years, it has been in existence for much longer.

Sam_b

24th November 2011, 01:27

any party representing the working-class

The main problem here is that the class is being used as a weapon to attack the SWP in a completely baseless way. The class is not, and never has been, homogenous. You have a point if the SWP claims to be the representative of the working class, which it does not.

The Idler

25th November 2011, 21:28

The principle is not a weapon to attack the SWP anymore than Wikileaks is merely a weapon to attack the United States State Department. It not targeting the SWP or holding them to higher standard. Making internal documents available to the class should be standard practice among any socialist organisation.

Nor is it unfair, since at least two or three organisations in the Brit Left do take this important political principle seriously. Why can't the SWP do the same or better?

Its not baseless to point out that the SWP are among the organisations that don't publish, since no-one is disputing that they do not publish Internal Bulletin and what they call the "leak" of IB is what prompted the discussion.

Class homogenity or otherwise isn't really relevant to openness or basic accountability. However, if the SWP does not claim to represent the working-class then why should the working-class support it? Does the SWP seek to represent the class, and if so, will it make internal documents available to the class when it does?

I take it the ISG won't be publishing internal documents, I would like to know how this was decided? I guess I would have to pay subs to find out and even then I might not be allowed.

Coggeh

25th November 2011, 23:06

Okay bro, cool story.
In fairness, despite my continually deteriorating respect of the SWP(no pun intended) I have to say I'm in complete agreement here. Why would an organisation in their newspaper print about the disagreements in their party? (Another reason why the CPGB is entirely irrelevant in British society) The party newspaper is more than a piece of paper its the ideas and perspective of the party given to the working class in order to educate and higher their class consciousness and give a socialist perspective on relevant issues to working class people.

What better way to NOT do that and put off working class people is their than oh ya Egypt, revolution etc oh and btw heres our section on all the infighting and disagreements or whatever goes on in the SWP camp (or any camp for that matter), so join us a political united force against capitalism.
The minutes of a meeting/debate within the party should be given to members and kept internal, its stupid middle class nit picking to think an organisation is somehow "undemocratic" just because it doesn't post its debates in the doors of peoples houses.

Coggeh

25th November 2011, 23:14

If you're supposed to be "the only serious revolutionary party" or "at the heart of the struggle" of your class, surely you're accountable enough to your class to publish internal bulletins which have no impact on security.
No your not stop being an irrelevant idealist. If an organisation wants to be a sacrificial lamb to pleasing middle class professors and right wing journalists be my guest. Publishing internal debates in your paper/website w/e is pretty stupid lets be honest here chaps.

Just ask yourself, which do people read more, the daily mail or the socialist worker?

25th November 2011, 23:48

Why would an organisation in their newspaper print about the disagreements in their party?
You (probably unintentionally) already answer your own question comrade:

The party newspaper is more than a piece of paper its the ideas and perspective of the party given to the working class in order to educate and higher their class consciousness and give a socialist perspective on relevant issues to working class people.
Indeed!

The point here is exactly that the working is not a homogeneous class, even its vanguard has very different ideas about strategy and tactics and have different opinions on social issues, depending on their background. On an even more microscopic level you could actually argue that every human is different, period.

A genuine mass workers party would act as a political mirror on these underlying differences and let such differences of ideas clash with one another. Only when ideas can openly class can a potential politisation take place as ideas needs to be deepened out, further explained. In such an environment, where nothing is taken for granted and Marx's advise of "question everything" is taken at a more or less institutional level of the party, clarity can occur.

Thus the workers party becomes the political crystallisation point of the class where there is a reciprocal relationship between party and class, where the class looks more and more for a correct leadership to the party and the party is more and more rooted in the working class, merging the socialist programme with the mass movement. Likewise, an open exchange of ideas is necessary for ideas to flourish and therefore learning people to think for themselves, a vital component of working class leaders if there was one.

On a more fundamental philosophical level, we are posed with the question "what is truth?" or more specifically what is proletarian truth and who determines this?. To make a long point short (Chris Knight does an excellent job at explaining the point indepth over here (http://vimeo.com/15032076)): I do not know the truth, merely my interpretation of it, thus subjective. Likewise, you do not know the truth. Our knowledge together will come a little bit closer to the truth. The bigger the group of peers becomes, the closer we can gain a scientific understanding of the truth, which is in our collective interests.

Just ask yourself, which do people read more, the daily mail or the socialist worker?

The irony here is that it is exactly the Socialist Worker that is in competition with the Daily Mail to be read by "the masses". The Weekly Worker actually is published with an eye on the left, which has to do with the strategic goal of the CPGB to unify the left into one Marxist party.

Coggeh

26th November 2011, 00:39

You (probably unintentionally) already answer your own question comrade:

Indeed!

The point here is exactly that the working is not a homogeneous class, even its vanguard has very different ideas about strategy and tactics and have different opinions on social issues, depending on their background. On an even more microscopic level you could actually argue that every human is different, period.

A genuine mass workers party would act as a political mirror on these underlying differences and let such differences of ideas clash with one another. Only when ideas can openly class can a potential politisation take place as ideas needs to be deepened out, further explained. In such an environment, where nothing is taken for granted and Marx's advise of "question everything" is taken at a more or less institutional level of the party, clarity can occur.
The SWP aren't a mass workers party or even claim to be. Clarity doesn't occur on those conditions, muddling and scrabbling does, for example look at the leaked SWP bulletin its fairly routine for any party, recruit, retain etc and now look at all the outraged posts afterwards because they said something about getting members to pay through direct debit suddenly the SWP is that much more evil because of that, but all organizations strive for that when possible, a steady income where possible in order to sustain the organisation financially, that article printed in the socialist worker would be incredibly idiotic, surely you agree?

Thus the workers party becomes the political crystallisation point of the class where there is a reciprocal relationship between party and class, where the class looks more and more for a correct leadership to the party and the party is more and more rooted in the working class, merging the socialist programme with the mass movement..The role of the party is not to homogeneous itself with the current working class perspective (which is the key error of the SWP in my opinion) but act to raise the current consciousness of the working class while not making oneself/themselves irrelevant to the working class (CPGB).

Likewise, an open exchange of ideas is necessary for ideas to flourish and therefore learning people to think for themselves, a vital component of working class leaders if there was oneThis is an "on paper" statement if i ever heard one. An exchange of ideas and discussion is fine absolutely but socialist organizations who don't claim to be a mass workers party (Samb already rightly pointed out the swp don't) what your suggesting (I assume unintentionally) is the working class, an extremely heterogeneous group in terms of perspective politically, have a role in determining a parties policy when their not members of that party. That statement does sound crude but put it in perspective, most of the Irish working class are anti abortion, should we therefore be? Our role is to put our ideas agreed within the organisation to the working class via websites, papers, leaflets etc and try to bring them to our perspective. Its not a 50/50 compromise here. Internal debates within the party no matter how small or significant are listed so it could be one guy who may be new going ah lads really? socialism? capitalism isn't that bad, put more eloquently but the point is that same (And trust me we've often had them put into the minutes of an internal meeting). Should an organisation put that on their paper?

On a more fundamental philosophical level, we are posed with the question "what is truth?" or more specifically what is proletarian truth and who determines this?. To make a long point short (Chris Knight does an excellent job at explaining the point indepth over here (http://vimeo.com/15032076)): I do not know the truth, merely my interpretation of it, thus subjective. Likewise, you do not know the truth. Our knowledge together will come a little bit closer to the truth. The bigger the group of peers becomes, the closer we can gain a scientific understanding of the truth, which is in our collective interests. Isn't that the point? in real terms its using your programme to the subjective or more significantly the material truth of the person in question. To put it more practically, leaflets designed for young people are around their perspective in society, what affects them, what is relevant to their subjective perspective and position within society.

Also the idea of the exchange of ideas based among the current class consciousness and the ideas of most people being in our collective interests is ridiculous, this may be my poor understanding of big words( i don't mean to be insulting but just left a bit confused about the above paragraph and its exact meaning, some orwellian english would do nicely :) ) but if i'm right in understanding i'd plead with you to walk into my estate and see the extremely broad collective ideas among even next door neighbours and then come back to me when you've incorporated all of them into a programme.

The irony here is that it is exactly the Socialist Worker that is in competition with the Daily Mail to be read by "the masses". The Weekly Worker actually is published with an eye on the left, which has to do with the strategic goal of the CPGB to unify the left into one Marxist party.The weekly worker prints gossip about other left parties, its strategic goal is not to unify left parties into one, Its goal is to feed off left-wing parties in an external entryist sense.

26th November 2011, 01:45

The SWP aren't a mass workers party or even claim to be.
And that is exactly the problem! There is no ambition to become a party of our class or build towards it. No vision towards working class rule. Instead, the vision of the SWP is expressed in recruiting 2000 members, mostly to compensate for the "revolving door" effect on the membership. That is no vision at all.

The underlying point here is between majoritarian and minoritarian politics. In other words: "the majority of the working class consciously have to want socialism, implying long term work in trying to merge the socialist programme with the class movement" versus "we, band of real revolutionaries can guide the working class towards radicalisation, for example by general strikes, so it has no other option than to take power eventually". The former implies a political fight of our class for democracy within our society, beginning within our own movement and a longterm engagement of prevailing reactionary or backward ideas (which in turn needs a democratic and open environment). The latter implies presenting the "correct" tactic and agitation by the party to the working class. It is indeed the latter tradition in which the SWP stands and which is the issue being debated here.

Clarity doesn't occur on those conditions, muddling and scrabbling does, for example look at the leaked SWP bulletin its fairly routine for any party, recruit, retain etc and now look at all the outraged posts afterwards because they said something about getting members to pay through direct debit suddenly the SWP is that much more evil because of that, but all organizations strive for that when possible, a steady income where possible in order to sustain the organisation financially, that article printed in the socialist worker would be incredibly idiotic, surely you agree?
I'll refer to an earlier post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/swps-internal-bulletin-t164124/index.html?p=2293897#post2293897) of mine in this thread for this point. Yes, it would probably be idiotic to print the IB in the Socialist Worker, but this in itself tells a lot about the political culture inside the SWP and its methods.

I do not oppose organisational discussions of course, but don't see why they need to be strictly internal either. If we are to built a revolutionary, surely we should be looking outward in our appeal?

[...] what your suggesting (I assume unintentionally) is the working class, an extremely heterogeneous group in terms of perspective politically, have a role in determining a parties policy when their not members of that party.
I may have been vague, but this is not the point at all. The point is that Marxists have to engage with the existing ideas in society and convince the class movement of a socialist outlook. Hence the point on a clashing of ideas.

In a debate, for example, regarding Keynesian politics, we could explain the underlying problems with it and why it will never offer a solution for the working class. The proponents would make their case from their point of view. The resulting clash and sent in comments by readers, will probably mean that the arguments need to be deepened and developed further, which is again followed by a response. This is just one example illustrating an ongoing process to deepen understanding for, potentially, the whole working class.

The point regarding "making workers learn to think" is that readers are not merely consumers of the information, but have the potential to participate as well, thus inviting them to think the arguments over and form their own opinion. Hence my previous statement on the party playing a role in the politisation of our class.

That statement does sound crude but put it in perspective, most of the Irish working class are anti abortion, should we therefore be?
A good example in the Irish context and certainly something worth engaging about. I'm not saying Marxists should be neutral, on the contrary! We should argue our case indeed, but let opponents respond to it, if they're willing to have some serious discussion. Even in the case you'll get some religious ranting back, I'd argue to publish it as it would only discredit the opponents' case really.

The weekly worker prints gossip about other left parties, its strategic goal is not to unify left parties into one, Its goal is to feed off left-wing parties in an external entryist sense.
What is the source for your understanding of this supposed strategic outline? Also, what is "external entryism"? That made no sense whatsoever.