SWP Pre-conference Bulletins 2012
- This topic has 73 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
AdamI only know as much about this case as I have read from the links on this thread. But can I ask you about your comment regarding the leaked conference transcript.What is wrong with exposing such internal problems, if they are concerning such a serious issue? Whistle blowers in other areas of life are often held up as vital in exposing flawed practices and cover ups?
Touché, Socialist Punk, but I think I can see where you're coming from. I am of course opposed to secret meetings and have nothing against their proceedings being leaked. Normally I'd be all in favour of this but my objection in this particular case was to the public identification of the alleged rapist. What's your take on this? Should people be free to publish the names of alleged rapists and their victims before anything has been proved? Agreed that the SWP have only themselves to blame for holding their own rape trial.. What on earth did they think they were doing?
imposs1904 wrote:is pretty much a game changer for the SWP. I'd be genuinely surprised if this time next year the SWP resembles the organisation it currently is, the organisation it has been for the last forty plus years. It's the most serious schism in the IS/SWP tradition since the IS Opposition split in the mid-seventies.You could be right that this could be the SWP's equivalent of the effect on the CP of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956, with people whose basic position (university-educated militant Guardian-readers in professional jobs) has long been out of sync with being in a top-down, centralised, Leninist party choosing the occasion to leave. We'll see.
That's one scenario, of course, but another scenario is that the growing opposition to the SWP's CC response to all this generates enough support to trigger a recall Conference – I've read in a couple of places that they need 20% of Branches to spark such a recall Conference – and you have the much thoroughgoing challenge to the leadership from middle-ranking cadre and rank-and-file members in the SWP's history.That's never happened before. The recall Conference . . . a widespread rank-and-file revolt . . . it's all new, and therefore totally unpredicatible.
Or it all just echoes of Gerry Healy and the SLL/WRP sex allegations of him and of course the SSP/Sheridan sex club affair…personal failings rather than a failure of their particular politics. So i think we have been here before, just different faces but similar stories.A few splits may arise but no change in commitment to the organisational structure that permits leadership abuses. Those are not challenged.Who'll actually benefit from the demise of the SWP. Won't be us because it is not the SWP positions and politics being called into question.More than likely the knock on effect will be further no trust in any political party, including ourselves.
ALB wrote:Agreed that the SWP have only themselves to blame for holding their own rape trial.. What on earth did they think they were doing?Engaging in a whitewash! I think it's called 'being loyal to one's buddies'; a laudable concept but otherwise intellectually bankrupt.
Not a lot of time to post, but Ian Bone makes an interesting pont here:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/why-no-women-leaders-of-trot-groups/and herehttp://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/swp-rape-allegation-would-aid-the-edl/
AdamI can see your point 100%. It is not an easy one to call in this case.What you refer to, in being against the publishing of accusations before a person is proved one way or another, is of course a general question.In answer to the general question I would have to say that the issue is a two part problem. If someone is charged with a crime, the details of such are openly recorded. If on the other hand no charge has been brought and allegations are thrown about all over the place then that is of course unfair to the accused. Both scenarios can be damaging to an innocent person.The issue of the SWP is obviously very complicated. If the person leaking the report felt uncomfortable about a perceived cover up of a serious issue then I see nothing wrong with it. However I do not know the publishers motivation.It is strange that two allegations of such a serious nature were not taken to the police by the alleged victims or by the SWP itself. It is surely better to deal with such an issue in an open manner.
Can only welcome what appears to be movements towards rejecting the democratic centralist model. The SWP has been a thoroughly nasty organisation for many, many years.
http://www.leninology.com/ (passim)http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/soviets-without-bolsheviks-the-outside-left-organises/http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/People are beginning to discuss what outcome could come of the disappearance of the SWP (I think it is likely to crumble, Labour rightists will not let a single opportunity pass to beat the SWP up over the Comrade Delta affair). While Richard 'Lenin' Seymour is playing the role of internal oppositionist (how long this will be tolerated is questionable), and sending out the call "Stay and fight" its unclear how they can, with the incumbant Central Committee holding all the constitutional cards (even a recall conference is subject to the manipulations of the CC, so its doubtful that could topple them). As some people have noted, as good materialists, the SWP has money, and the actual outcome of the factional spat will be who ends up with the assets, if not the toxic brand.So far as I can see, we can only wish well any attempt to form a genuine, broad (however you define it) socialist movement. Our advice is the same as we gave to the occupy movement: you need to have a democratic mechanism to co-ordinate such a movement (we can call such a mechanisms a "Party"), and you need to aim for political action: you can't abandon the field of elections.After that, we can have the discussion about reformism.Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a call to dissolve ourselves into a bigger, democratic and socialist organisation. Until such a movement adequately addresses the question of Party, Political action and Anti-Reformism, we'll need to stand our ground.
For anyone wanting to be brought up to speed on what's been happening in the SWP, Green blogger Jim Jepps has provided a nice timeline with links from all concerned:http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273
A rival defence of democratic centralismhttp://socialistresistance.org/4552/whose-democratic-centralismDon't agree with it of course, but posting to show that rivals are making criticism of the SWP part and parcel of a defence of democratic centralism or even a defence of the IS tradition in the case of counterfire.
Richard Seymour has launched a blogInternational SocialismIn the SWP this looks like going for broke (or a expulsion/split). Simon Wells was expelled from the SWP (then publicly wrestled to the ground at Marxism by guess who) for running a blog in 2007.
Pham Binh (ex-ISO) gives his verdict here, very interesting read this onehttp://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4691"Its watchwords must be horizontalism, plurality, transparency, and results, not centralism, uniformity, discipline, and vanguardism. It must be experimental, a work in progress, rather than a set of fixed answers and structures."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.