The SWP: Rape Apologists?

[ProletariatPower]

I have been considering joining the (British) Socialist Workers Party for a while now, although I disagree with some of the ideological aspects of the party, I greatly approve of the active role they play in the fight against Fascism, which is something to be admired considering the amount of Socialist parties we have that merely plan for the future revolution, and do little to act for the present struggles. However, I have heard of the rape allegations that transpired, unsure of how clear the information is and such I was wondering if anyone here knows more about the issue. I am aware the involved member resigned, however there have been accusations of the party having a rape apologist stance. If this is an issue that has been dealt with, I believe I may still join the party. However, if the leadership is directly involved in this I doubt I could in good conscience be a supporter of such a party.

Therefore I'm asking if anyone here knows any more detail about this issue, basically I want to know if the current SWP leadership were involved in this apologist action or not.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think the problem was that it was an SWP leader who was accused, and the party did not want to hold him accountable.

Also, I think we might distinguish between "apologism" and "denial". They weren't so much making apologies for rape but denying that it took place.

[Hrafn]

I would argue that there is less apologism here, and more outright enabling. Along every step of the way, the SWP's leadership did its best to build up one hell of a rape culture.

This text concerns some of the issues with the way the leaders acted. http://socialistunity.com/swp-party-members-write-full-narrative-comrade-delta-rape-case/

[The Idler]

There was a long article that appeared recently in New Statesman here you might appreciate
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/comrades-war-decline-and-fall-socialist-workers-party

[ruth]

Since that incident has been made public, SWP members have been writing on blogs about incidents where sexism, sexual harassment, rape and wife beating have been ignored or covered up by the Senior party leadership.

For example, the member who said that a senior activist in his branch was known to beat up his wife. But because he was so active, it was ignored.

Or another member who said new female members were often warned about which male party members to avoid being alone with, but with no action taken against those men.

The way this rape was dealt with does not seem to be a one off incident, but a culture in which misogyny, sexual harassment and rape are simply covered up.

[Lord Testicles]

I have been considering joining the (British) Socialist Workers Party for a while now, although I disagree with some of the ideological aspects of the party, I greatly approve of the active role they play in the fight against Fascism, which is something to be admired considering the amount of Socialist parties we have that merely plan for the future revolution, and do little to act for the present struggles.

The SWP idea of fighting fascism consists of voluntarily standing in a police kettle shouting "Whos streets? Our streets!" while you're local Liberal Democrat\Labour councillor tells us all that "fascism is bad and remember world war 2? That was a lot of hard work wasn't it?" all while their courageous stewards keep the protesters safe by handing in the odd antifascist to the police. Unfortunately their record on handling sexual abuse seems to be even worse. 0/10 wouldn't join.

[human strike]

Since that incident has been made public, SWP members have been writing on blogs about incidents where sexism, sexual harassment, rape and wife beating have been ignored or covered up by the Senior party leadership.

For example, the member who said that a senior activist in his branch was known to beat up his wife. But because he was so active, it was ignored.

Or another member who said new female members were often warned about which male party members to avoid being alone with, but with no action taken against those men.

The way this rape was dealt with does not seem to be a one off incident, but a culture in which misogyny, sexual harassment and rape are simply covered up.

So much this. The SWP are serial offenders at covering up abuse and sexual assault; I've seen it happen. The culture of misogyny in the party was obvious to a lot of us for years. I have a lot of friends who left a year ago for whom it wasn't so obvious until it became impossible to not see. You really wanna stay the fuck away from this party, and for all sorts of reasons, not even just this. If I seem angry it's because I am: friends of mine have suffered at the hands of these pricks - the problem was always a lot bigger than Martin Smith or a few arseholes in the leadership.

I will say though that there is a serious danger of scapegoating here. Just look at the Socialist Party of England and Wales and their dealings with Steve Hedley for another example of similar behaviour (at least in the SWP it lead to a crisis). This is a problem in the left generally.

[Q]

I will say though that there is a serious danger of scapegoating here. Just look at the Socialist Party of England and Wales and their dealings with Steve Hedley for another example of similar behaviour (at least in the SWP it lead to a crisis). This is a problem in the left generally.
Ding!

The problem is not that these groups are filled by mysogynist, rapist men, that's just a result. It's the result of the far left organising in the way it does, that is, via bureaucratic forms, which propel leading cadres to act in the way they do. This mechanism has been documented quite a few times by many comrades over the decades.

And since bureaucratic forms stem from politics, theory and programme, it is exactly a problem that needs to be tackled at this level. Comrades need to rebel and need to fight for the right to publically disagree, hold fulltimers to account, have solidarity with any and all victimised comrades (those who were sexually harassed, but also those who were expelled for thinking differently) and comrades need to organise durable horizontal links as even if nothing 'happens', the very existence of such links will repel quite a bit of nasty individuals in high spots to act in the way they could.

But what we see is an SWP that simply fractures in several groups and each group, all being militantly 'anti-sexist', repeating exactly the same structural problems of the SWP. This is the result of mere frustration and not thinking things over.

[blake 3:17]

I wouldn't go near an SWP event with a ten foot pole. I've severed all ties with anyone in the SWP and for the local affiliate, the friendliest you'll get is a nod.

This a pretty good aggregate of articles on the issue, haven't clicked through all the links, but I think I read them all at the time: http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273

Apologies if there's dead ones.

Within all organizations, communities, political parties etc, bad stuff is going to go down. That's a simple truth. What's messed up is when an organization pretends it is best the judge of its own leaders behaviour and gets others to lie and lie. That's a ship of fools.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ding!

The problem is not that these groups are filled by mysogynist, rapist men, that's just a result. It's the result of the far left organising in the way it does, that is, via bureaucratic forms, which propel leading cadres to act in the way they do. This mechanism has been documented quite a few times by many comrades over the decades.

And since bureaucratic forms stem from politics, theory and programme, it is exactly a problem that needs to be tackled at this level. Comrades need to rebel and need to fight for the right to publically disagree, hold fulltimers to account, have solidarity with any and all victimised comrades (those who were sexually harassed, but also those who were expelled for thinking differently) and comrades need to organise durable horizontal links as even if nothing 'happens', the very existence of such links will repel quite a bit of nasty individuals in high spots to act in the way they could.

But what we see is an SWP that simply fractures in several groups and each group, all being militantly 'anti-sexist', repeating exactly the same structural problems of the SWP. This is the result of mere frustration and not thinking things over.

Because, as everyone knows, no organisation that allows members to break group discipline and "publicly disagree" (red: feed the gossip mags and help the good bourgeois state and its police apparatus) has ever covered up questionable behaviour from its members or contacts. Aufheben are, I suppose, arch-democratic centralists.

What happened is inexcusable and points to deep problems within the SWP (but then again, their attitude toward e.g. Islamists could have told us the same thing), but it is equally inexcusable to use this to score cheap factional points. Particularly since some of the people who have been most vocal in their condemnation of democratic centralism over this are for all intents and purposes police "socialists" (Proyect and one of his idiotic protegees).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I remember going down to a picket line when the land registry workers were on strike to show support etc and an SWP member (a worker at the office) told us we had to leave because it was "private property". A supposed revolutionary socialist upholding private property... There are a few members amongst their organisation who are good folks but the direction the organisation takes, the methods they use and the one or two ridiculously sectarian individuals make working with them difficult to say the least.

[BolshevikBabe]

They're a systemically misogynistic and patriarchal party and I wouldn't touch them if you paid me (though I'm not a Trotskyist so I guess I probably wouldn't even if all this hadn't happened)

[Q]

Because, as everyone knows, no organisation that allows members to break group discipline and "publicly disagree" (red: feed the gossip mags and help the good bourgeois state and its police apparatus) has ever covered up questionable behaviour from its members or contacts. Aufheben are, I suppose, arch-democratic centralists.

What happened is inexcusable and points to deep problems within the SWP (but then again, their attitude toward e.g. Islamists could have told us the same thing), but it is equally inexcusable to use this to score cheap factional points. Particularly since some of the people who have been most vocal in their condemnation of democratic centralism over this are for all intents and purposes police "socialists" (Proyect and one of his idiotic protegees).
Two remarks:
1. I never said that an open political culture would prevent any and all abuses of power. That would obviously be ridiculous. It would however undermine structural causes regarding these problems.
2. "Gossip mags"? "Helping the bourgeois state apparatus"? The bureaucratic culture you're defending here has nothing to do with revolutionary politics. Short fact: The Bolsheviks had an open press, where disagreements were waged openly, even despite the fact that it had to be operated under police state conditions. So, your 'democratic-centralism' (a highly problematic term by the way (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula/)) will not convince me.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You will probably find aspects of wider society's problems of sexism, homophobia/mis-treatment of LBTQ people and minorities etc. in any party unless it operates in a vacuum, and it does seem as though the cultification of many left grupuscules has led to some pretty nasty shit - the SWP's being the most recent and perhaps shocking for its ridiculous cover-up and, as said above, total enabling of a rape culture.

In addition, there are other reasons to steer waaaaay clear of the SWP - they are known to inflate their 'membership' numbers by aggressively recruiting on university campuses (note - NOT at the poles of class conflict, but at universities, which are overwhelmingly stocked with people who are living on the edge of precarity), and have been known to then burn-out said student activists by taking advantage of essentially free labour to sell papers at stalls all day. Also, IIRC, the SWP are notorious for physical intimidation of people who try to put up other parties' stalls at SWP events, and don't let's get started on their collaboration with George 'the cat' Galloway and his RESPECT party.

[ruth]

The SWP has a long history of ridiculing feminism. Anyone challenging misogyny in the party, was often accused of feminism.

Any party that does not take the oppression of women seriously, will always have issues with misogyny.

[The Idler]

Because, as everyone knows, no organisation that allows members to break group discipline and "publicly disagree" (red: feed the gossip mags and help the good bourgeois state and its police apparatus) has ever covered up questionable behaviour from its members or contacts. Aufheben are, I suppose, arch-democratic centralists.

What happened is inexcusable and points to deep problems within the SWP (but then again, their attitude toward e.g. Islamists could have told us the same thing), but it is equally inexcusable to use this to score cheap factional points. Particularly since some of the people who have been most vocal in their condemnation of democratic centralism over this are for all intents and purposes police "socialists" (Proyect and one of his idiotic protegees).
Members of the SWP did 'break group discipline' if that's what you call publicly disagreeing. This is how on 7 January 2013, they exposed the report presented at January 2013 conference. National secretary of the SWP asked for this to be removed. The latter rather than the former seems much more like to me to be 'policing socialists'.

In fact the allegations date back to 2010, so it might have been better for womens oppression to 'break group discipline' three years earlier than they did. Whether you think that one of the accusers did not want to go to the police helps the bourgeois state or the police, perhaps you could tell us. Although I think the label of 'cheap factional points' better applies to other posters here than Q.

The political points relating to democratic centralism are that at the conference there were 231 votes for accepting, 209 votes to reject and 18 absentions. On 14 January 2013, SWP National Secretary issued a statement saying that the case was closed. Then Callinicos stated "The one-day special conference on 10th March will provide a full opportunity for discussion. It will be an opportunity to reaffirm the decisions taken at the January conference. Whatever comes out of it will have to be accepted by everyone. Anyone who doesn’t accept “will attract the righteous anger of the bulk of party members.”" The CC motion was then endorsed by 483 for, 133 against, 13 abstentions.

[ProletariatPower]

After reading all this and looking into those sources people linked, I can see what you all mean, definitely not gonna join. Another party I thought might actually be legitimately left wing turns out to be a joke, and one that allowed damage to people's lives in it's appalling management at that.