Socialist Party Head Office
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Comment from a Party member not on this forum:It’s interesting though not nearly as complete as it might be of course. Falling-Rate-of-Profit and disproportionality should be mentioned specifically (and profit squeeze is really a subset of the latter).Would be interesting to develop an alternative version.
We are not sure that they will arrive in time for Summer School as the last day by which they are supposed to arrive is 17 July. If they do arrive before 12 July then some will be available in Birmingham.
Reviewed here on the site of our US companion party:http://wspus.org/2013/05/book-review-the-alternative-to-capitalism/We have ordered 50 copies for sale to members and others. These have not yet arrived but you can order your copy now by contacting us at our email address: spgb [at] worldsocialism.orgThe price will be about £5 including postage.
Comment received from a Socialist Party member who is not on this forum:I don’t really understand why Mike Savage feels he deserves credit for identifying a ‘cleavage’ between the rich elite and the rest of us, when it’s bleeding obvious to the rest of us. Instead of clearing up the confusing middle ground the survey introduces yet more categories of middle ground, thus obscuring more than it reveals.
Letter received from Laurens Otter about this article:Steve Clayton puts too much emphasis on the spilt between the bolsheviki & the mensheviki; they only spilt half way through the "Unity Conference" by which time they had together expelled the "economists" (those fighting the economic battles.) The difference between the Bolsheviki & Mensheviki was just that the latter accepted work within party-supported caucuses as party work, whereas Lenin (initially with the support of Plekhanov, who only went to the Mensheviki alter the conference, ) insisted that only work done under the express control of party committees was. It mattered since all party members were expected to do so many hours of party work in any given time.Most of the "economists" were no doubt Labour Party-type reformists, so Steve (& you or I) would hardly prefer them, But in Sukhanov's account of the conference there is a record of one delegate – whose name did not appear in the "short" translation I read, (the Russian original was seven volumes, the translation published in the '50s was in one volume,) – & he objected (also before the bolshevik/menshevik split) that the draft party statements “treated the party as subject, and the [working] class only as object." Which he rightly said was a fundamental departure from Marxism. It has been suggested that the delegate concerned was Sukhanov himself.Moreover – as your party used to emphasize – both Mensheviki & Bolsheviki were at the time agreed that socialism was not on the order of the day; they then both held to the "stages" theory, whereby Russia needed to have a bourgeois-democrat revolution first, & only after it would socialism be on the agenda. They both believed that Russian capitalists were too cowardly to make their own revolution, & wanted to push the Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) & Octobrists into so doing. Lenin & Martov subsequently differed as to just how far they might intervene directly in the bourgeois revolution. Both at that stage were equally shocked by Parvus & Trotsky's suggestion of "Permanent Revolution," – that the working class should pose its own demand for power as soon as the bourgeoisie had achieved its.Then in 1916, alter writing his Philosophic notebooks & the publication of "The State & the devolution," (a pamphlet which went counter to all his previous thinking on the role of the party leadership,) he broke with the internal Leadership of the Bolshevik Party, was indeed expelled from the party. He said, in 1917, "the party-masses are a myriad times more revolutionary than the party leadership, and the non-party masses a myriad times wore so than the party-masses," that totally inverted everything he had said about the role & make-up of the party. Unfortunately no doubt, after the Revolution he made it up with his party & reverted to his former theories.But as your party (up until the beginning of the 1950s, ) used to insist, Lenin – after the revolution – stressed that what had been achieved was "workers' -dominated state capitalism, in transition to socialism," he believed the Soviets gave political power to the workers, & that it was possible for a short-time that this could override the long-term capitalist control; he argued that the transition could only be made if there was a socialist revolution in the West. If this seems a contradiction of Marx, I refer you to the latter's approval of Lassalls's "Qu'est-que c'est qu'une Constitution;” wherein that author says that under the conditions of an insurrection when the working class is fully mobilized, it is possible that for a short-time political & economic power are divorced and that workers may exercise political power even though they lack economic control.It is obvious that revolution did not happen in the West. Given that when Lenin died 83% of property in the Soviet Union was still in private hands, the Communists did not claim that Russia was socialist until Stalin's 1929-35 ("Third Period") nationalizations. Given that these were done at the very time when Stalin was banning all trade unions, & party purges, it is ironic that even his bolshevik-leninists critics accepted that that was a time of socialist transition. Before he died, Lenin, had in the controversy with Trotsky on the T. U, question, redefined his term as "workers '-dominated state capitalism, in transition to socialism, but with severe bureaucratic deformations. " Rakovskl , before being broken into submission by Stalin's torturers, said Russia had become a bureaucratic state with residual working class features.It is worth remembering that in the State & the Revolution Lenin predicts that the time must come, (if socialism is to be achieved, ) when the working class will rebel against the workers' state.
Leaflet sent to Head Office by Chronos Publications which gives the views of Robert Kurz on why the class struggle is irrelevant and on the need to call for the abolition of work.Yes the present hour is very severe at leastDear Comrades of Aulnay,Your leaflet* moved me, I have thus kept it, you were distributing it on a cold March morning at the Gare du Nord, whilst I was coming off a train to go to work I am responding to it today in order to launch a debate on the goals and the means of struggle.In my firm as in yours, wage-earners are faced with redundancies. Of course, the circumstances are not altogether identical: you are blue-collar workers, my colleagues and I are white-collar workers; 11,000 are threatened at PSA (Peugeot-Citroen), a little fewer than 100 (out of 700) in the firm where I work. However, the same problem arises here and there. In the Capitalist society to work, to have a wage, conditions survival. So how can you live when you no longer have any work? This is the very question and you ask it bluntly. But it seems to me that you ask the question in an incomplete manner.Dear Comrades of Aulnay,I do not have any miraculous solution to put forward; I only wish to tackle the problem in more real term than yours. You denounce "the firms which makes some redundant in order to increase the productivity of others, thus [increase the] profits of [the bosses]". The threats which weigh upon wage-earners you analyse solely in terms of exploitation and you demand jobs. But in speaking the language, you have mistaken the epoch. The historical drama which is being acted out at present is of a different nature than the one of the old class struggles.In the first place, you forget that the struggle far work has never been the bearer of emancipation. In fact, work is not only a means of survival it is also above all the central element of the Capitalist domination. Then, you go on as if one could today create jobs at will Certainly, capital is based on the expenditure of human work, and the more it consumes it, the better it is. Except that, at the same time, it must increase the productivity of work, (capital must produce always more capital), which takes place by the replacement of human work by machines. Today, a great part of production is automated. The social problem which imposes itself upon us is the one of the end of work.Dear Comrades of Aulnay,If in the past the class struggles could appear as revolutionary, it is because the victories of the proletariat contributed to the humanisation of Capitalism (workers have become subjects with rights and have improved the conditions of "life"). But nowadays, Capitalism can no longer expand and thereby the possibilities for reforming it are vanishing. The disappearance of work makes class struggle appear in its truth: class struggle is not a form of action which allows one to get out of Capitalism, but is an element which is an integral part of the Capitalist dynamic. It is not a struggle between a dominant class and a revolutionary class, but between different interests (although differently powerful) within capitalism. In the present conditions of the crisis, a "victorious“ class struggle can only be only be partial and provisional (jobs that have been salvaged for a little while, the salary increases that engender hikes in the cost of "living"). The class struggle, which was already not revolutionary, can no longer even be reformist.Dear Comrades of Aulnay,When one fights back simply against exploiters, as you do, one has mistaken the target. Certainly capitalists make decisions (and what decisions!), but they make those that are dictated by capital and its logic of accumulation. The real target is capital itself. And in this difficult fight where the enemy is impersonal, we also have a chance. The automation of production which makes more human beings "superfluous" is also what could liberate humanity from work and could permit the uncoupling of production from the imperatives of capital, that is to say to institute production that no longer determines false needs, but which, on the contrary, is determined by human needs.At present Capitalism puts before us the following alternatives: either a more and more precarious survival within a moribund Capitalism (bringing about the erosion of the social state), or else the exit from capitalism: the replacement of work by free human activity. In this context, the simple struggle for employment cannot mobilise on a long-term basis; on the contrary it tends to disarm us. To enlarge the perspective, you must at the same time struggle for the means of survival and to assert that work has been made obsolete and that the means of emancipation are already there. To break with Capitalism, one must link the demand for simple means of survival (for example, to demand a better income for the unemployed or the upholding of a quality health system for all), to the supersession of work. Only such a project will be able to bring together and radicalise the different forms of struggle against the management of crisis. Only such a project will open a field of possibilities for the future.Fraternally, a wage-earner from the Groupe Express-Roulanta, Paris, 1st May 2013.May Day for the abolition of workTranslated from the French on the 1st of May 2013 in London.*Footnotes1. This leaflet is an answer to one written by the striking PSA (Peugeot-Citroen) workers. (The strike began in January 2013 against the destruction of 11,000 workplaces before 2014).2. Aulnay (or Aulnay-sous-Bois) is a suburb of Paris. Aulnay is one of PSA's the vehicle production sites and is due to be closed before 2014.
Extract from a letter received from a Socialist in Warsaw:I commend you on the article about Austria in April's Socialist Standard under the title "Voice from the Back"; as little impact it may have on the working class, of course due to our size.The Austrian working class don't seem to have improved since they voted in Karl Leuger as mayor of Vienna on an anti-Semitic ticket before the first world war.It is good to note that Austria has the lowest unemployment rate in the European Union. Five per-cent. Of course, it would not be the thing to be one of the five per-cent. However, one wonders what the situation in Austria would be like if they had the same unemployment rate as say Greece or Spain …
Richard Wolff has sent us the following comment:
Quote:Thank you for sending your email to our website. I am, of course, gratified to see another socialist grappling with the 40 years of work Resnick and I collaborated on to maintain and further develop a tradition of Marxian economics in less than encouraging circumstances. Happily those circumstances have altered drastically at least here, and our work is bearing all sorts of fruits (some of which you can see on the websites indicated below). So it is sad to encounter so poorly reasoned a breezy dismissal of what we have done. The basic mistakes in Marxian theory, the absurd attributions to us of positions we do not take, and so forth accumulate into another one of those overheated denunciations that refer to Marx "turning in his grave." Even the turns of phrase are old, hackneyed, and contentless. Colin Skelly knows what Marx really meant: we lesser mortals only manage with interpretations. Skelly also knows what Marxism and socialism are and expels us and our work from either: how quaintly old-fashioned and irrelevant a bluster. His crude diatribe may serve a purpose beyond self-indulgence: it may reinforce hostile stereotypes of socialists, Marxists and their debates that dissuade so many otherwise interested people from exploring them further.R. WolffThis article has been reproduced on the Zed Books blog here:http://zed-books.blogspot.no/2013/04/socialist-standard-material-world.html
Communication received at Head Office by email:
Quote:19 year old Tunisian Amina who posted a topless photo of herself bearing the slogan “my body belongs to me, and is not the source of anyone’s honour” has been threatened with death.Islamist cleric Adel Almi, president of Al-Jamia Al-Li-Wassatia Tawia Wal-Islah, has called for Amina’s flogging and stoning to death saying Amina’s actions will bring misfortune by causing “epidemics and disasters” and “could be contagious and give ideas to other women…”We, the undersigned, unequivocally defend Amina, and demand that her life and liberty be protected and that those who have threatened her be immediately prosecuted.On 4 April 2013, we call for an International Day to Defend Amina.Amina represents us all.On the day and beyond, groups and individuals can join in by highlighting her case, posting topless photos of themselves and their activism on social media sites, signing a petition, Tweeting #Amina, writing letters in her defence, and more.On 4 April, we will remind the Islamists and the world that the real epidemic and disaster that must be challenged is misogyny – Islamic or otherwise.SignedAliaa Magda Elmahdy, Egyptian Nude Photo Revolutionary Alina Isabel Pérez, Filmmaker Amanda Brown, We are Atheism Founder Annie Sugier, President of Ligue du Droit International des Femmes Arash T. Riahi, Film Director Caroline Fourest, Writer and Journalist; most recent film: “Our Breasts; Our Arms” Darina Al-Joundi, Lebanese Actress and Author of “The Day Nina Simone Stopped Singing” Deeyah, Music Composer and Filmmaker; most recent film “Banaz: A Love Story” about an honour killing Elia Tabesh, Iranian Women in Support of Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran Fariborz Pooya, Iranian Secular Society Farzana Hassan, Writer Fatou Sow, President of the Groupe de recherche sur les femmes et les lois au Sénégal FEMEN Fiammetta Venner, Filmmaker and Writer Greta Christina, Writer and Blogger Houzan Mahmoud, Spokesperson of Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq Inna Shevchenko, FEMEN Spokesperson International Committee against Execution International Committee against Stoning Jacek Tabisz, President of Polish Rationalist Society Joseph Paris, Radical Cinema Kareem Amer, Egyptian Blogger Kian Azar, Communist Youth Organisation Marian Tudor, President of Romanian Association for Workers’ Emancipation Marieme Helie Lucas, Algerian Sociologist and founder of Secularism is a Women’s Issue Maryam Namazie, Campaigner and Spokesperson for Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran and initiator of Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson of International Committee against Stoning and International Committee against Execution Nadia El-Fani, Tunisian Filmmaker; most recent films “Neither Allah nor Master” and “Our Breasts; Our Arms” Nahla Mahmoud, Sudanese Researcher and Human Rights Activist Nina Sankari, President of European Feminist Initiative Poland and Secularist Richard Dawkins, Scientist Rumy Hassan, Writer Safia Lebdi, Co-founder of Neither Whores nor Submissives Secularism is a Women’s Issue Soad Baba Aïssa, Women’s Rights Campaigner Sohaila Sharifi, Iranian Women’s Rights Campaigner Sundas Hoorain, Pakistani Human Rights Lawyer Tarek Fatah, Writer Taslima Nasrin, Bangladeshi WriterHere is the text of a leaflet being printed today for distribution at SWP meetings:Open Letter to the SWPFellow workers,We have heard of recent expulsions, resignations, allegations of unjust procedure and internal dissent in the Socialist Workers Party. We are surprised by the scale of recent events rather than the occurrence of the events themselves. We have heard regularly over recent years of expulsions, resignations, allegations of unjust procedure and internal dissent. Some commentators are calling the events in 2013 ‘the SWP spring’.Not all of you may be familiar with our organisation, The Socialist Party of Great Britain, but we are the longest existing socialist party in the country.We would like to appeal to all independent-minded freethinking workers and (by way of comparison) explain some of our most important principles of organising of which we are very proud.Movements and Owen JonesIrrespective of membership numbers, we don’t believe political criticism is necessarily sectarian.A sect is a group that, unlike a party, believes itself unaccountable to anything broader than the sect.If parties are accountable and seek to represent everyone not just a vanguard of ‘advanced workers’, then we believe a “socialist network” aimed at political power is unnecessary.A sect is a group that, although it may have open recruitment, nevertheless treats non-initiates only as potential recruits or avowed enemies.A cult is a group that, worse than a sect, denies validity of any reference from wider society.We oppose secrecy, all our business meetings are public, all business meetings are minuted and published for the working-class to inspect.This includes our annual conference, which this year is from 29 March to 30 March.Central Committees and Richard SeymourSWP practice is a departure from recognisably democratic practice, such as we have in our trade unions.We have never expelled any member without a democratic vote of the membership.All our members have an equal say in directly deciding our policy, our Executive committee cannot put motions to conferenceWe're not anarchists espousing the tyranny of structurelessness, we believe in majority decisions. We also believe that majority decisions should bind all our activity (we're not autonomists), but we won't bully members into activity either.We believe these ordinary labour movement practices contrast favourably when compared to the Socialist Workers Party.Sexism and Laurie PennyWe oppose sexism and believe women should feel equally as safe as men at party events.We call out sexism even if comrades are otherwise ‘good socialists’.We do not consider allegations of rape a matter for a political party to hear and judge.Democratic Centralism and LeninWe are not federalist and we centralise administrative functions for effectivity, but not political decisions.The rules governing members' conduct are like those of any democratic free association, to protect members and the democratic process from abuse.Our unity of purpose is achieved through an emphasis on conscious understanding of the case for socialism by any prospective member.The politically privileged will not share their privilege willingly, this goes for the SWP Central Committee too. Democracy is built, not granted.An organisation wishing to establish socialism, which is based on people's direct democratic control of the society and its resources can only achieve this goal by organising itself in a democratic manner. Likewise; regardless of its alleged 'socialist aspirations', a political party that is based on a hierarchical structure with an overly powerful central committee is doomed to achieve a hierarchical society with a privileged party elite. We believe that this unity between communist theory with practice and democratic means with ends is vital for the socialist movement, as Marx so aptly put it 'the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class', not we would add the work of a centrally controlled vanguard.Yours for socialism,The Socialist PartyP.S.Further information on our organisation, as well as a list of upcoming events (including our 2013 summer school 12 July to 14 July), can be found on our website:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/March 2013
The BBC World Service has phoned to ask if we would like to contribute to their World Have Your Say programme at 6 o'clock this evening on "Are You Mourning President Chavez?". What would happen is that you would be contacted by phone to give your view for a minute or so.If there is a volunteer out there (for instance, someone who has contributed to this thread and is on the media committee) could they contact spgb.co [at] worldsocialism.org as soon as possible.
Dear ComradesI have asked for this to be posted to the forum because I’m not a member and unfortunately have very little time available to join or follow online debates. As I have a short break from work I have been able to reply. I apologise for the length but I hope readers won’t find it too tedious.As befits a debate on an energy question, this one seems to have generated more heat than light, and this in the week when Ofgem has announced a likely fall of 10 percent in energy capacity by April, with home energy bills set to rocket due to gas imports that other countries are also competing for at premium prices. Ofgem blames the recession for cutbacks in investment in renewables –
Quote:Before the financial crisis the government had backed a visionary approach to energy on wind, water and nuclear… then came the financial tsunami.Whether they were really quite so ‘visionary’ is of course debatable. Consumer Focus offer a stark prognosis:
Quote:With six million households in fuel poverty, rising to over nine million by 2016, and an increasing proportion of our incomes being spent on essential items like energy, this latest news… is chilling’ (BBC News Business, 19 February).I mention this to put the debate in context. Some people have been saying that fracking is a class issue. I would say that six million households in fuel poverty certainly is. Are there six million households threatened by fracking?What has depressed me in the diatribes against my article is the lack of scientific substance in them. Specifically, no technical criticism of fracking has been put forward. No statement from my original Pathfinders article has been held up as wrong. In fact I have been more critical of fracking than my opponents. What seems to have caused the upset is that I was somewhat dismissive of opponents’ and Green Party objections. I suppose this is true, but it is because there tends to be no scientific substance in them.In his first post John Holliday approvingly cited a source on fracking, not from a scientific journal but from Radical Philosophy – http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/what-the-frack. I have waited until I could get a chance to read this article before offering any further observations. I make the following comments about the article because I think they are relevant to the present discussion.Radical Philosophy (RP) begins by presenting the positive arguments in favour of fracking as ‘official narratives’. This does two things. It alerts us that there is an ‘unofficial narrative’ which the magazine will be putting. It also warns us that anyone caught expressing any positive arguments for fracking can be regarded as part of the ‘official narrative’, in other words a lackey of the state and the corporations. Thus RP nails its colours to the mast, and its opposition to a cross, before it has even got going.Perhaps it is not necessary to say this, but you wouldn’t find a scientific magazine using an opening gambit like this for the simple reason that it wouldn’t be very scientific if it did.The RP article goes on to present the problems with fracking. Surprisingly it says very little about methane seepage, which is certainly an area for concern and one which Pathfinders did not overlook, or earthquakes, which also occur in coal-mining districts, or about the reported illnesses suffered by people near frack sites, about which evidence is conflicting. Instead it concentrates mainly on the toxic chemicals used in the fracking water, although it doesn’t say what they are. This is not very surprising since at present companies keep this information to themselves, but ingredients are likely to include mineral oil for lubrication, ethylene glycol to prevent scale in the pipes, and glutaraldehyde (used by dentists) or another disinfectant to stop bacterial growth. What comes back up is potentially worse, since the water can pick up toxic salts and organic compounds such as benzene, xylene and phenols as it passes through the rock, and these could be harmful if they get into aquifers. The question is whether they can get into aquifers.The RP article talks a lot about shale water and aquifers, and often in the same sentence, so that a reader would be forgiven for thinking that there must be a strong link between them. But this is a highly contentious question, and RP does not explain the depths involved. Shale deposits are normally 2 to 3 kilometres deep while water tables are around 50 metres deep. It is highly unlikely that shale water could seep upwards far enough to contaminate potable aquifers. Where aquifer contamination has occurred, the most likely culprit is improperly sealed bore piping at the ground-level wellhead, in other words toxic water seeping out of the well and into the aquifer, not up from the subterranean shale strata. This was the finding of a team from the University of Texas at Austin, led by Charles Groat, who ‘hopes the report will help regulators worldwide separate ‘fact from fiction’. He says
Quote:We found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself had contaminated groundwater. We found that most of the violations were at or near the surface.A New Scientist study review last year found the same thing (‘Fracking not to blame for shale gas pollution’, 17 February 2012). An earlier article from 25 January reported that the clearest evidence for groundwater pollution in fact came from a so-called ‘tight-gas frack’ near Pavillion, Wyoming, where a shallow shale deposit was fracked at a depth of just 372 metres, within the aquifer used by local people, and surely in breach of environmental regulations.The Radical Philosophy article makes clear that a considerable number of wells in the US have been sunk in violation of DEP safety regulations. This is certainly a problem, but Pathfinders also made this point when it referred to ‘cowboy carelessness’ and made no bones about the fact that ‘the smart money was straight down the well-heads before anybody thought to ask any awkward questions about regulation’. It continued: ‘If regulated properly, which is a big ‘if’ in some countries…’ Radical Philosophy goes on to argue that lack of regulation is in the interest of corporations and by extension governments:
Quote:Too few inspectors with too few resources devoted to the inspection of well sites accords with the desire of the politicians’ buddies in the oil and gas industry…Personally I wouldn’t go this far. While probably true in the short term, it can’t be true as a general principle in the long term or there would be no regulation in any industry whatsoever. RP’s statement could be taken to imply that capitalism’s key problem is lack of regulation. Socialists conversely would say that capitalism is a problem whether regulated or not.So Pathfinders and RP appear to be saying the same thing, that regulation is the issue. But Pathfinders addresses an important question which RP leaves unasked. Can the technology of fracking be made safe with proper regulation? It is at this point that the RP article plays a sleight of hand. It equates the technology of fracking with the social, political and economic problems that surround it, as if they are one and the same thing:
Quote:Though it is the name of an industrial process, fracking should also be taken as an index of the political crises with which we now have to contend.This is a wholly dishonest ploy, like equating a chain saw with deforestation, or a car with a car-bomb, and relies for its effect on the reader having already assimilated the writer’s bias. Fracking is a mining technology, not an index of political crises. If it can be made safe, and if we need it, we may use it in socialism.This is the key scientific question, now in danger of being lost in the white noise. The subject has become so politicised – and polarised – and so rapidly that a balanced view seems unlikely to emerge. To governments, anything which makes them independent of imports must be good. To the corporations, anything that makes a profit must be done, so must be doable. To the Greens, anything that distracts us from renewable energy investment must be bad. To local residents, frightened by scare stories in the press and distrustful of ‘official narratives’, anybody who is not with them is against them.Pathfinders attempts to represent a socialist view of science, and a scientific view of socialism, in accordance with the Party’s view that we should try to form our ideas based on the best available evidence, not on our own preferences, or appeals to authority or peer groups. This can’t be done by following the herd which is following the loudest shouters, whether they are right or left, establishment or ‘alternative’, official or unofficial. It is my honest opinion that the evidence against fracking is still scanty and contradictory, and that fracking does not, at least not yet, justify the wholesale opposition it has provoked.Paddy Shannon, Lancaster
Letter received at Head Office:I have an English friend, Michael, who has an Argentinian friend; they visit each other on alternate years. Michael said, "The first time I went there was in 1983, the year after the Falklands War. We were in Beunos Aires, socializing with some of the locals and I said to them, 'Look I am English, so if you don't want to talk to me, I'll understand'. They said, 'No, not at all, we'll talk to you. We've nothing against the English; we didn't want that war. The government forced it upon us to divert attention from the problems at home'."It's encouraging to see some of the working class realize how they are being used, but would be more encouraging if they organized to do something about it.Steve Shannon, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Here is the final version of the statement which the EC adopted as an EC Resolution at its meeting of 2 February:
Quote:a. This EC notes reports of SWP (Britain):i. Arbitrary expulsion prior to conference of four members resulting from their expression of political disagreement. ii. Subsequent resignations after the allegations have been made public outside the party. iii. Further allegations of procedural impropriety arising from central committee privilege.b. The Socialist Party asserts the norms of the labour movement for over a century. These are:i. Members can speak freely and action alleged to be detrimental to the interests of the organisation decided as democratically as possible by the membership as a whole. ii. Democracy means all members should participate in determining policy and be in full possession of the facts. All positions of responsibility should be chosen through competitive election. iii. Activity should be democratic and decided by the majority. Anarchist criticism of tyranny of the majority is wrong and leads to tyranny of structurelessness. Activity or inactivity should be voluntary.c. The Socialist Party concludes — our unique contributions:i. The SWP tradition (its policies determined by the Central Committee) is distinguished by organisational norms contrary to the labour movement and its best interests. ii. Secrecy under the guise of security is characteristic of a sect not a party. iii. Likewise, the party has a responsibility to hear and listen to political complaints openly from within and from workers outside the party without prejudice. This is especially the case for complaints against those in positions of responsibility.A separate leaflet for general distribution and communication to the media is being prepared.
