GOTCHA – DEBATE ABOUT SEXISM EMERGES IN THE SWP
Martin Smith, former National Secretary of the SWP, has been bumped off the Central Committee. After previously being forced to resign as National Secretary following allegations of him abusing his position of power to harass a woman SWP member in Birmingham. This was handled so poorly by the SWP that I understand the woman felt unable to continue in SWP membership, and when Martin Smith stepped down he was given a standing ovation at SWP conference, with delegates stamping their feet, and chanting support. This is quite extraordinary, and indicative of a culture which colludes in sexism in order to protect the institutional interests of the SWP.
In the Internet era it is much more difficult for those holding power within closed circles like the SWP to manage the information flows which protect their position, and I am pleased that Socialist Unity has played a role, however minor, in bringing this sexism into the public gaze.
Of course, worse allegations had been made about other leading members of the SWP, now deceased, and women were discouraged from complaining, and some women members of the central committee played a particularly shameful role, in excusing the inexcusable.
In 2007, I previously wrote about the culture of sexism in the SWP:
Let us look at what happened in Bristol [in 2005]. Three comrades resigned from the SWP, Ann Thomas, Paulette North and Richard Tucker over the gross sexism in Bristol District SWP, and the way the SWP at a national level refused to do anything about it.
Ann Thomas is a well respected activist in Bristol. A former left-wing Labour Party councillor, who resigned from Labour when they implemented the Poll Tax, and shortly after she joined the SWP, which she then worked to build for sixteen years. Paulette North was another long term SWP cadre, who was the lead candidate for Respect in the South West region in the 2004 Euro elections. Richard Tucker was also a long term SWP member.
The issue they left over was SWP leading member in Bristol, Pete W, repeatedly shouting, insulting and bullying the women members. Jo Benefield, who was herself being shouted at by Pete W confronted him about how such sexist behaviour is unacceptable in a socialist organisation.
Unbelievably, Pete W complained to the SWP’s internal disciplinary committee about Jo Benefield. Let Ann Thomas take up the story herself:
“Yes, I and Paulette left and so did Richard Tucker. We were all disgusted with the way the SWP handled Jo’s complaint – actually she tackled Pete directly about the way he treated women, particularly Paulette and me and Jo, and it was Pete who went to the party to complain about Jo criticising him!! Remarkable. Pete would always resent any political interference by me in the College where we both work. The party dragged it out for so long and punished Jo too! Pat Stack and Martin Smith chose to believe pete over Jo and me and Paulette. I left January 2006 while it was still going on because of their contempt for us.
“Just because an organisation says it’s against sexism doesn’t mean it doesn’t behave in a discriminatory way. It’s OK if you agree with everything the party says, then you can speak out, but if you want to disagree then you’re seen as ‘difficult’ or not really ‘one of us’. Consequently many of the women are tolerated, but the men always dominate the meetings in Bristol. Look at the way Jo was portrayed as ‘hysterical.’ The night of the coup [in Respect] the speakers were all men with the women as silent partners.”
Eventually a disciplinary hearing to discuss sexism involved only four men, who talked to Jo Benefield, and they sided with Pete W, for the good of unity within the SWP. Jo Benefield was not allowed to be accompanied to this kangaroo court.
Can you imagine any other labour movement organisation that would hold a hearing about complaints of sexism, with no women on panel? If an employer tried that, the union would have them for breakfast.
There are of course much worse examples of sexist behaviour from leading comrades in the SWP being tolerated, and it took a certain chutzpah or lack of self awareness from Chris Harman to himself bring the can-opener so close to that particular can of worms, in his 2007 attack on RESPECT for alleged sexism.
So within their own organisation there is actually firm evidence of sexist behaviour, shouting at bullying of women, and the SWP has colluded with the sexists and not backed the women.
Other comrades have spoken of the “fuck circuit” surrounding Central Committee members, who have favoured their sexual partners for promotion within the SWP, and who have marginalised women who refuse their advances. It is not clear to me whether these behaviours have been transferred over to the new Counterfire organisation.
Elsewhere, adding insult to injury, false accusations of sexual misconduct have been used by full timers to marginalise and demonise people perceived as “oppositionists” in the SWP.
So it is very good to see that a debate has opened up in this year’s SWP Internal Bulletins about whether the organisation is institutionally sexist. The wind may blow away a few cobwebs.
It’s difficult to know quite how to respond to this article.
I have no idea whether or not most of the incidents described are true or whether the interpretations are reasonable (e.g. shouting at and insulting people in meetings may not be a pleasant thing to do – but without knowing what was being shouted or the nature of the insults, I’m not sure why it should be considered an example of sexism). However, I feel very uncomfortable at the gloating tone, including the “Gotcha” in the headline.
I am surprised that you felt qualified to comment on it then.
Perhaps the fact that leading male members of the SWP have abused their positions of power for years, and that their goose is now cooked, should be a cause for celebration for those who oppose sexism?
I commented on the tone, which I think I’m qualified to do. Anyway, one thing I forgot to ask: do you (or anybody else) have any links to these internal bulletins?
i would have thought that sexism is an unpleasant phenomenon in any organisation, especially a socialist one.
But socialist unity begins to resemble a damaged plough which constantly turns the same furrow with it’s over concentration on the internal deficiencies of the SWP.
It is surely a welcome development that the comrades are seeking to address a political problem (which is widespread and not confined to the state caps)?
Find a different hobby Andy Newman – how about looking at the warts of your objectionable lot for change?
I have no idea what you are referring to.
After years and years of cover ups, evasion, and seeking to silnce those who spoke out.
Good picture. Th evidence however is what exactly? The point I’m making is that this item may suit your political slant but whats your point? you provide no evidence of a macho sexist culture. Of course it is entirely possible that some individuals behave in a despicable fashion. But put the thing to the test rather than indulgingthe contributors to your site?
John Grimshaw,
You are demonstrating an instrumental view of opposing sexism, when the spot light is focused upon the abuse of power in a trotskyite organisation, you start bleeting.
How anyone who has worked in or alongside the SWP could be unaware of a macho culture is a mystery.
As regards evidence? What evidence do you seek?
Andy Newman,
Is there any evidence of sexism within the capitalist Labour Party (ie “your lot”) Andy Newman?
The swp’s internal culture may be rotten and deteriorating, but at least there appears to be moves towards addressing the issue. They are miniscule and largely uninfluential. Capitalist Labour by comparison (unfortunately) remains huge and influences millions.
Why not focus upon the ugly sexism that free market Labour has been responsible for during its periods of reign? Did capitalist Labour confront the disgusting sexism within the military during its recent 13 years of office – ie, when it was in a position to do so?
One can only speculate about the mindset that can so spectacularly misjudge where the enemy resides.
John Grimshaw.
You demand evidence. Do you deny that the SWP control commission inquiries have heard complaints about seismic with an all male tribunal.
Do you deny that Jo Benefield was sanctioned for complaining about sexsim? Do you de.y she was described as “hysterical”?
Do you deny Martin Smith has gone? Do you deny that SWP members gave him a standing ovation AFTER his disgrace?
Dont you think it is a good thing if institutional sexism is at last challenged?
Of course we live in a sexist society where stigma still attaches to the VICTIMS of sexual abuse. It is interesting that all the comments here seem concerned about the bruised feelings if the PERPETRATORS for being exposed.
The
redcogs,
The last Labour government introduced the Equality Act 2010, and working tax credits and the minimum wage that hugely benefitted working class women. In its internal culture the party has all women short lists and gender balancing.
Labour is far LESS sexist than the SWP.
The point should also be made that SWP members and their fellow travellers, on here and elsewhere, seemed eager to condemn George Galloway over clumsy comments and even used it as an excuse to justify a non-vote for a leading ‘Left-of-Labour’ party at a recent by-election.
When the obvious hypocrisy, in light of the above, was pointed point to them it was met with avoidance, a certain amount of squirming and attempts to change the subject.
@11 Labour is far LESS sexist than the SWP.
I have experience of both groups and I would concur with this.
Many years ago, in a pub after a monthly public meeting, I observed how the meeting’s headline speaker; a leading and very well known SWP member (now deceased), once practically salivated over a newly recruited female comrade in her late teens (he would have been well over twice her age at the time). He also saw fit to do a drunken impression of an octopus at the same time. It was obvious that she was becoming increasingly uncomfortable and after that we never saw her on the next paper sale or ever again in fact. She simply (and wisely) left.
When I and others raised this at the end of a branch meeting a month or so later it was dismissed with, “Oh, that’s what he’s like – he came through the sixties – just forget about it and don’t make trouble for the Branch”.
I have never experienced anything like that in the Labour Party or wider TU movement.
andy newman,
The difficulty of quantifying which is most sexist, capitalist Labour or the SWP is obvious. Free market Labour presides periodically over society in the UK, and has undeniably had some progressive impact upon the lives of some women. Yet in many areas it has abysmally failed to address sexist cultures that it has had direct responsibility for – the MOD being a classic example, where the recent revelation that of the 400 women officers questioned ALL had been subjected to unwanted sexist attention from male soldiers.
Would you conclude from that that Gordon Brown (for example) was less sexist than Martin Smith when Brown was in a position to positively intervene to undercut sexism within the military?
Perhaps you might consider removing the plank from your own eye before giving such prominence to the splinters that undoubtably afflict the eyes of the Left..
I can see that I’m gonna regret getting involved in this. But hey. lets start from the back and work forwards. Yes I do require evidence. You have frequently alluded to such evidence but have singularly provided to produce it. You mention e-mails you have received. Or conversations you have had. Or your own bitter experience. Now I can understand if you feel unable to furnish such evidence because you have been sworn to secrecy etc. but surely you must understand then therefore that your evidence is simply at best circumstancial.
I was a member of the SWP from 1989 until 2001. I think there was a macho culture amongst some of the males in the London area, but I don’t remember it being a massive issue. Of course as I was never allowed into the inner sanctum maybe I didn’t notice it. As you say any organisation that has come out of our sexist culture must of necessity partake to some extent. Its about combatting it. And I do think the SWP formally did that. I have to say that as an original member of the Stockport area I don’t remember any such behaviour at all. I did however leave the SWP because I could not equate their obsessive lack of democracy with their avowed intentions.
I am demonstrating an instrumental view? Interesting that you can say that when you donm’t know me. I wonder whether you have some issues? Meanwhile I try my best to be non-sexist but as I am sure you appreciate this is always hard for an individual, in such a society. That isn’t making excuses by the way, but I am sure you are more advanced than I.
Bleeting. No. Trotskyist organisation. Well not anymore. Who knows I may yet change my mind. Stop accusing strangers who you know little about of conspiring in rprehensible behaviour for which you have no evidence.
Oh dear. i could make this up as I went along.
There are some serious issues at the heart of this regarding Bristol but this discussion too easily turns into the usual hatchet job based on gossip & sectarian based guess work. Half of this article is based on gossip – for example, is there any evidence, other than what “other comrades have spoken of” (in other words gossip), that CC members have favoured “their sexual partners for promotion within the SWP”? Can we have an example?
Eventually a disciplinary hearing to discuss sexism involved only four men……Can you imagine any other labour movement organisation that would hold a hearing about complaints of sexism, with no women on panel?
They’re not the only ones:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/16/house-democrats-walk-out-contraception
John Grimshaw,
Clearly I dont need to know you personally to note that your comments on here exhibit an instrumentalist presumption that because an organisation formally says it is anti-sexist then you seem unconcerned whether it is actually sexist.
With regard to evidence, your remarks seem very
Similar to those I have heard from bullying employers who brush aside reports of racism or sexism because the imbalance of power makes it harder for victims to be given voice.
Firstly. I actually do give evidence in the form of testimony from Ann Thomas, which supports my account of how Martin Smith and Pat stack disciplined a woman for complaining about sexism.
However, victims of sexism are reluctant to come forwards for a number of reasons, not least that stigma lies upon them.
When women are sacked from positions in the movement – such as press officer of a national campaign – becaus they refuse go fuck a leading member of the SWP, and was then replaced by that leading members girlfriend #2. How does that not smack of sexism.
@14Meanwhile I try my best to be non-sexist but as I am sure you appreciate this is always hard for an individual, in such a society. That isn’t making excuses by the way
I have heard that used as an excuse.
Anyway, we are not speaking of indivuals and individualism though. We are speaking of an organisation that is structured in such a way as to protect and facilitate past, present and future abusers. The “circle the wagons” culture, “group think” and lack of democracy (that you, yourself, mention) can institutionalise this.
The content and tone of your post at #14 could be viewed as part of the problem.
I don’t remember any such behaviour at all
Being up in Stockport I guess you weren’t on (to quote Andy)…”The “fuck circuit” surrounding Central Committee members”
Julian,
What is particularly ridiculous is that everything I have referred to is not only factual, and i have spoken to the victims involved. But literally hundreds of people reading this know exactly what i am referring to.
The culture of left groups is that you dont want to believe inconvenient truths.
redcogs,
I agree with your main points that the SWP has had no progressive impact on British society; and that the Labour Party has achieved substantial improvements for working people.
@14but I am sure you are more advanced than I
I’m opposed to sexist and explotative behaviour among socialists/progressives and don’t seek to excuse or negate it so, on that score, I guess I am more advanced than you.
@14Meanwhile I try my best to be non-sexist but as I am sure you appreciate this is always hard for an individual, in such a society.
You’ll never hear of socialists replacing the word “non-sexist” with “non-racist” in the above sentence.
Funny that.
Name names please? After all you can’t libel the dead. Your “evidence” is unsubstantial and would hardly stand up in an ET. What about other left groups? You seem to have developed an OCD about the SWP.
BTW. Karl Marx’s domestic arrangements were hardly politically correct either. Didn’t he impregnate his maid and throw her out?
I’m assuming your post #23 is directed at me in relation to what I wrote in #12.
@23Name names please?
Re-read Andy’s article.
@23Your “evidence” is unsubstantial and would hardly stand up in an ET.
Maybe so, but the leading CC member was not the younger female comrade’s manager or employer so I don’t know what ET’s have anything to do with. The anecdote recounted in #12 is true and it occured.
What about other left groups?
Good point. I do recall the SWP always lambasting the then Militant group for it’s supposed sexist culture and use of sexist language in speeches.
Pots….Kettles….Black
Without having witnessed that particular incident, I know immediately whom Jellytot is referring to.
SWP members who were active in branches in that era will immediately recognise the description; and for those who may not have persoanlly seen it, they may remember the extreme hostility towards this particular leading SWP “theortician” from many young women members, who complained of his sexism, for many years. The context of why they thought that may now be clearer.
Are other left groups currentlly debating whether they are institutionallly sexist in their Internal Bulletins?
@Jellytot. Comments were directed at Andy as he has continually goes on about this without giving any evidence. Sorry didn’t make this clear mate.
andy newman,
The inability to identify the substantive elements of an argument may have been an impediment in your life so far Andy Newman, but worry not, help is at hand.
//Parrot Facility//on//:
The honourable cause of identifying sexism and rooting it out is not necessarily facilitated by highlighting and publishing the failings of the tiny sect, in the way that you do in this article.
It would be much more efficacious to recognise the more serious and widespread sexism that is enabled by the large capitalist political organisations (Labour for one) which fail to properly confront the most abusive denigration of women which is endemic within ‘Her Majesty’s’ armed forces.
Gordon Brown and others were in a position to positively affect the lives of every female officer of the British Army for 13 years but they failed to do so.
//Parrot Mode//Off//
Yet you point to the SWP, demonising those who have little immediate possibility of influencing such matters at all.
A strange sense of priorities no?
@Andy. I have no idea. Most left groups tend be in denial about members bigotry so very much doubt it. If this is an issue in the SWP then at least they are doing something about it.
From my personal knowledge of both men, yes Gordon is less sexist than Martin Smith.
Militant’s appallingly backward and reactionary line which was also shared by some Stalinists about homosexuality being a “bourgeois perversion” would suggest that organisation was institutionally homophobic. Maybe someone can tell us whether this was also discussed in their internal bulletins?
This is a curious argument. What “evidence” can be produced in a blog article?
Note that the whole culture of the SWP has been to cover up allegations, and to prevent there being any possiblity for “evidence” to be produced.
Jellytot himself has just produced testimony in comment #12 which is itself evidence supportive of the allegations about one deceased former leading activist. i.e testimony is evidence, it is up to you to make a subjective judgement how much weight you place on it.
The evidence I give in this article about sexism in Bristol is I think quite strong; and of the cover up, where martin Smith and Pat Stack held a kangaroo court and disciplined the woman who complained about sexism, as well as starting a whisper campiagn about her being hysterical.
@Andy. “worse allegations had been made about other leading members of the SWP, now deceased” So why don’t you tell us more and you can safely name names as you can’t libel the dead. After all we all know about the late Gerry Healy’s antics in the WRP.
That was certainly the line argued by Cliff and Halllas at one stage.
Because to do so would identify the victims, who must choose for themselves whether to speak out.
We live in a society where stigma still attaches to the victims of abuse; I have no authority to speak for other people, who have chosen to remain silent.
@Andy. Wasn’t aware of that. Please explain as the SWP seemed at the time (1970′s-80′s) to have along with most Trot groups apart from Militant being quite progressive on this and other social issues. BTW You can name the perpetrators without implicating any victims, its not that difficult so why don’t you?
You are certainly arguing an instrumental position, that becasue sexism is endemic in society, then we should not concern ourselves with the sexism in left groups; it will after all sort itself out after the revolution.
I am particularly unimpressed with this argument as it is almost word for word what was said to one former SWP women member (who had been sexuallly assulated by a central committe member after a public meeting ), she was told that society was sexist, that individual male comrades were affected by that sexism, and that speaking out would damage “the party”, the implication being that it would also damage the cause of socialism. i.e. huge pressure was put on her to withdraw her complaint – pressure that only made sense in the shared world view of the SWP’s own understanding of its own imprtance.
Interestingly the full time organiser for the city, who knew about it, was then expelled on a ridiculous pretext.
Why does Andy Newman concentrate SO much time & words on the SWP, a group he continually says is an irrelevancy? I’m no SWP supporter but there are far more important things to analyse & discuss.
Actually i spend very little time either thinking or writing about them. This is the first article I have written about the SWP I think for well over a year.
Why do you falsely claim that i write about them a lot?
Well I have a reason, because SWP members have been coming onto SU and posting comments saying that their organisation does not tolerate sexism, and even accusing other people – like Gallloway – of being sexist.
As I know the truth about sexism in the SWP I challenge those assertions, recounting what I know.
With other left groups, I have no knowledge of what has occured and so wouldn’t presume to comment.
#39 There was a post on your site only 10 days ago about the SWP.
Not written by me. I played absolutely no role whatsoever in that.
In fact to illustrate how disingenuous that claim is, there were some 337 comments on that article, only about 5 from me, and I only referred to the SWP in passing.
#42 But this is your site and on that last SWP piece you made at least 11 interventions.
@Andy. Never suggested you comment on stuff you don’t know anything about, that is for others to share with us it would be most welcome as this has become a one sided tirade against the SWP when other left groups hardly have clean hands when it comes to tolerating backward attitudes and offensive behaviour, or in the case of Militant actually institutionalising homophobia in their organisation by having such an appalling line. It would be interesting to know if this was ever discussed amongst them at the time as am pretty sure a lot of members wouldn’t have been too happy about it.
It is also John Wight’s site, and he wrote that article, the contributions I made to that debate were mostly not about the SWP at all.
The last thing of any substance I wriite about the SWP was in November 2011
http://www.socialistunity.com/cliff-in-perspective/
Agreed.
There may apear to be a bias becasue I am writing about what i know, and my knowledge is skewed by my personal experience.
And before that you have to go back to February 2010
So letus be clear, I have written on average one article per year about the SWP for the last 4 years.
@Andy. You are alleging leading now dead SWP members were prolific sex offenders, something you obviously seem to know something about so why the reluctance to name them? Surely this something we should know about and is in the public interest? You don’t have to give lurid details about who supposedly did what to whom if this would implicate the victims.Can you tell us more about Cliff and Hallas arguing that homosexuality was a”bourgeois perversion” and how this was debated at the time because in contrast to Militant I don’t remember this ever being an official line in the SWP? Am interested how this came about?
Had you been a Labour Prime Minister for as long as Gordon Browin was i assume you would have made an intervention to eliminate sexist abuse within the British Armed Forces Andy Newman?
Doesn’t Gordon’s failure to confront sexism in this area indicate an instrumentalist approach by capitalist Labour and its leaders?
#47 I don’t know about Militant but their successors, the Socialist Party, has a lot of women in leading positions and a prominent LBGT section.
I have said as much as I am empowered to say by the confidences that were shared with me, and the conditions that the person confiding in me placed upon me
I remember going for a drink with Duncan sometime about 1987,, after a branch meeting in Bristol, and us youngsters were making the same points you are about how “backwards” the millies were about LGBT issues; Hallas confided that until the rise of the gay rights movement in the early 1970s, he and Cliff had shared the same view that is was a deviation that would disappear under socialism. They however learned from the movement, and changed their minds.
you are so naive
governments are not all poweful, and they have to desal with vested interests – within the political context, and parliamentary timetable constraints that they have.
Excuse me Andy Newman, but did you, a supporter of free market war mongering sexist and racist Labour Party, one who professes socialist ideals?! suggest that i – a non aligned armchair type, am naive?
Your grasp of the queen’s English is as good as your sense of political priorities.
Raphael Samuel Lost World of Communism is worth a read, he writes a fascinating account of the the role of women in the CP in the 40s. The Left has come a long way since then thanks goodness.
In my experience of the SWP I have to say something weird happened in the internal culture of the Party sometime in the late 80s early 90s. When I first met the SWP in the mid 80s in York they were a really good crew, open and with many leading women cardre- yep they tended to all speak with North London accents and use to same hand motions to emphasis a point but it was the time of the miners strike and there was a real sense of we are all in this fight together.
The SWP I met in Hackney after I came down to London with the Nelson Mandela Freedom March were a very different crew, very few women comrades, abrasive, sectarian, prone to wrecking things if they didn’t get their way, the anti-Poll Tax struggle was a classic with the SWPies shooting down speakers, one meeting we had to draft in 500 turkish and kurdish commies keep them in order. Ex-SWP comrades I know spoke of the total destruction of any semblance of internal democracy in that period, comrades who wobbled were faced with a range of sanctions, from the worst paper selling spots to a serious word from a leading comrade, which could involve three or four comrades brow beating the errant comrade for hours and hours, to straight forward physical intimidation. A method I seem to remember they picked up from the Millies.
The fact that the SWP is now, rather belatedly addressing their internal culture has to be a good thing, but whether they are able to fundamentally change their internal culture and keep the Party together remains to be seen-there is always the Counterfire coffee shop team waiting to pick up any strays.
@57The SWP I met in Hackney after I came down to London…..were a very different crew, very few women comrades, abrasive, sectarian, prone to wrecking things if they didn’t get their way
If types like “Undertaker” are anything to go by they are still around sadly. I would like to think though that they are a dying breed.
Given modern social mores, the less deferential attitude of youth to their elders, cynicism towards and distrust of institutions in general and the ongoing revolution in communication and the social network, I think the vertical, pyramid structure of groups like the SWP may be harder to maintain in coming decades.
This has to be a good thing.
Where is the evidence for Militant being anti-gay and involved in physical intimidation?!
I always thought the SWP was a cult with all the fringe-psychological issues that go along with it. Always a real test is to voice a disagreement and see the group reaction. Absolutely a no-goer for most people politically and their devious ways of hijacking movements is nearly as notorious as their simmering hatred for anything that doesn’t resemble…them.
I remember John Grimshaw from Stocky – Hi John! The SWP was not a cult, and had all sorts of personal / political problems within itself. In my day (circa 1985 – 1990) there was an undercurrent of disrespect for hacks. I doubt that a cult would have such.
It is encouraging that SWP are addressing the issue of sexism and abuse of power by influential members.
It is an issue of concern for all socialists, from all left wing parties.
There were many debates and movements throughout 1960s and 1980s ,which discussed these issues within the socialist and feminist movements.The SWP was at the forefront of debating these issues through Women’s Voice publication and organising conferences and workshops where these issues were debated, engaging large groups of working class women in militant action.
It would be very positive to see SWP, and other left wing groups, focus on combatting sexism and organising for men and women to unite to fight against the ferocious attacks made by this government on the poorest people in society.
Brilliant article Andy, after all their opportunistic attacks on RESPECT for George Galloway’s defence of Assange this really shows up the hypocrisy of the SWP leadership. As for the Labour debate, well in Bradford it took RESPECT to break up Labour’s braderi patriarchy – more effectively than the SWP ever have!
Btw if Martin has now fallen, does this mean a Smith split is in the offing, following on the heels of the Rees and Bambery ones? And where would he go? Counterfire can’t be such an attractive prospect for him can it =)
“Smith Split” is hard to say when you have had a few.
I assume that Chris Harman used his position of power to sexually harass women comrades.
The accusation is that Chris Harman sexually harassed women comrades within the SWP. I think he probably did.
Marxist Lenonist,
Where to begin here? Perhaps it’s best not to, but I’ll try anyway.
There is clearly something untoward in the issues around Martin Smith. No one who has commented has given any idea that they know what the exact issues are, that is beyond rumour which you can find all over the internet including in places that people interested in socialist unity would abhor. But there is obviously something.
That there has been a bullying culture in the SWP is well known, so much so that the SWP itself acknowledges it. Sexism is often associated with bullying and is certainly exacerbated by a culture of it. One look at the SWP’s latest internal discussion bulletin shows that there is some acknowledgement of both. At the same time the departures of so many people from Respect for disagreeing with George Galloway over his comments over rape also shows a bullying culture. Leading figures in Respect such as Salma Yaqoob are not engaged in an internal discussion. They found it so bad that they simply left.
George Galloway’s comments were wrong and damaging. I know that various people on this site have tried to defend every last bit of what he said. So without going through all the arguments again, the fact remains that a man in his late fifties, in a smoking jacket looking to a shaking camera and opining on the insertion of the penis and when it requires explicit consent is not where the left needs to or should be. He had a chance to row back. He didn’t take it. Instead he repeated that he stood by everything he said in the idiotic podcast.
You can criticise Galloway’s mistake over what he said about rape in general, not just Assange, and at the same time reject the anti-left and pro-imperialist assault. But what Galloway said damaged the left after the thinking elements of the left were lifted by his victory in Bradford. There is now a very vicious downward spiral and demoralisation. That is clearly the case in Respect, as anyone who talks to Respect members knows.
It is wider than Respect and the SWP, but it is crystallised in the destructive argument from supporters of both. We have hyped up outrage from SWP members at what was a very bad mistake from Galloway. The outrage is so great that the SWP publishes an article calling for a vote for Labour against Respect’s Lee Jasper. The moral indignation is transparently to do with the internal fight in the SWP over the politics of women’s oppression, a fight that is utterly distorted by what I imagine are messy circumstances over Smith.
At the same time, we have various people who have rallied to Galloway relishing and embellishing discomfort in the SWP. All in the name of women. All the people raising it seem to be men. So much that could be said about John Rees and others in terms of their seeking out young/attractive women could be said about Galloway. I think a lot of people who comment here know that deep down.
Now it seems we have a driving out of people, especially women, in Respect who argued that Galloway was wrong and at the same time the beginnings of a bitter argument in the SWP over feminism. People in glass houses should not throw stones, even when they are in the seeming fortress of the Labour Party, where internal issues of discrimination are not unknown.
People will read events as it suits them. Many of us normally do. We do that especially when there is no genuine dialogue with others. That dialogue does not exist for many in these exchanges. It would be nice for that to change. I don’t think it will. Meanwhile, there will be just enough people to keep stoking the fire of destruction of anything positive.
“Oh, that God the gift would give us To see ourselves as others see us.”
Perhaps the Lennonist, as well as others, would think on that.
Actually in my experience Chris Harman was a bit of a pussycat because he was in Leeds so Tawat was all over him.
I never know quite what people mean by “stalinist” (I’m guessing they just mean Communists or Marxist-Leninists), but the newly elected National Executive of the Communist Party is around a fifth openly LGBTQ.
Not that people were elected on that basis, rather they are just exceptional comrades.
They are all rather fine and effective people! Their insight and leadership in the coming years will be well worth listening to.
Chris Harman’s son, Seth, was upon his own talents and completely nothing to do with his dad, appointed as an SWP full-timer. The best was when Moira, playing Simone to Seth’s Sartre, told Liz that Seth really fancied her. Liz mentioned it to her boyfriend, Phil, and Phil said “If you sleep with Seth Harman I will never speak to you again.” Bestest ever.
Why have Respect failed to hold Galloway to account? Maybe the SWP were right to identify institutionalised sexism in their critique back in 2007.
To clarify post 72, I meant the SWP critique of Repect.
andy newman,
No, suggesting that people secure positions in the SWP leadership based on who they sleep with is disgraceful baseless gossip. Can you give an example? I think barely a week after Julie Waterson’s funeral, not someone I believe would have tolerated such a culture, it just feels like nasty sectarian gossip. This period would have included when Lyndsey German was in the leadership & Judith Orr was editor of socialist review.
This kind of gossip based sectarian prosecution has no place on the left.
It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that Galloway’s remarks and Respect’s inability to call him to account are known facts upon which people can pass considered judgements.
Are Labour MP’s going to vote against welfare cuts seeing as these cuts are going to hit women the hardest
Why did Labour court Rupert Murdoch so enthusiastically? They would have been aware of his association with sexist publications. Why is Andy using a ‘Sun’ headline against a party of the left?
Julian,
Julian, I very much doubt your pretended innocence. I am sure you know EXACTLY what I am referring to.
stuart,
A transparent use of the dont look here look there manoeuvre
You seem to be mastering that pretty well. The posters that defended Galloway can be treated to a thread devoted to gossip. Neatly done.
andy newman,
I’m not sure why you’re in a position to tell me I’m pretending innocence. I genuinely dont know what you’re referring to. Why the need for the ‘nudge nudge, wink wink’ inuendo? Who are you referring to?
stuart,
“The posters that defended Galloway can be treated to a thread devoted to gossip.”
Cynical drivel. Not everyone who defends Assange or Galloway is obsessed with the SWP’s adherence or otherwise to its petit-bourgeois feminist-influenced puritanical moral mores. I have never subscribed to them, nor am I am interested in being in an organisation where people’s personal lives are subject to interference by any party leadership.
We want no condescending saviours – including ‘socialist’ arbitrators of what is ‘moral’ in people’s consensual personal lives. Oppressive behaviour beyond consensuality should be dealt with in the same way in political life as outside it. Reject gossips and all moralising elitist hypocrites, and stick to the politics.
And down with those who cross class lines over the Assange witchhunt.
redscribe,
You are able to give your opinion on Galloway based on what information is available, others can agree or disagree, that is genuine debate. But a thread devoted to gossip takes ‘debate’ to a different, and most unwelcome, level.
stuart,
I don’t think you understand me. I have little or no interest in this material, it is as unverifiable to anyone outside a very rarified sphere. Who gives a damn over whether an organisation led by people who are grossly hypocritical in many spheres are also hypocritical when it comes to implementing their dubious principles internally? I would just take it as read that this is likely to be the case, and pay it no further special attention.
Galloway’s views on the Assange business are a matter of public record and are to be defended publicly. You will observe that I and also other intervened extensively on this question but did not comment on this thread until your feeble smear that everyone who defends Galloway has some interest in this business. I do not.
As for ‘holding Galloway to account’ for his comments, I think the SWP leadership should be held to account for getting into bed with the CIA over this.
If some inquisitorial meeting had been held to ‘hold Galloway to account’ for his defence of Assange there could a case for genuine anti-imperialists to set up a picket line outside such an event, with all that implies about the labour movement tradition involving picket lines.
In the SWP branch I was in I never came across any sexism – if anything, most of us wanted to get more people involved of whatever gender. Of course, that does not mean this was the case in other branches.
Where it is quite easy to see where things could easily have gone wrong would be lack of internal debate or dispute within the party, and ‘circling of the wagons’ whenever any criticism of the party leadership, or party line, was made by members. It is this which helps lead to the arrogance of those in the higher echelons of the SWP where challenge from, and accountability to, members was not something they had to worry too much about. I know of cases of appalling treatment of long term members for petty reasons which I suspect they would be the first to criticise if it was in the workplace. I don’t believe things would be any different if there were allegations that have been made in this blog, and I think most people on here know it.
If the SWP are serious about addressing these issues whenever they arise, they would be better off – even on this blog – avoiding the issue using ‘whataboutary’ and take a serious look at the internal party culture which helped generate this in the first place. The party has acknowledged things it denied for years in the recent past so maybe it can still do so – these accusations are from some time ago.
I completely agree – the genie is well out of the bottle in that regard. Some of them must wish they could go back to the days where the only info members got was Party Notes, and all potential members could learn of them was from party members unless they knew any hacked off ex-members.
Stuart, Galloway was absolutely 100 per cent right in condemning the CIA smear against Assange.
The whole of the CIA’s smear against Assange rests on one statement from one person who said, in that statement and in her own words that she chose to have consensual sex with Assange and further, in that same statement, and in her own words, she said that she did not want the involvement of the police crime unit.
None of us know if her statement is true or not, but the FACT is that that is her statement and the FACT is that this single statement represents the entirety of the “case” that the CIA is seeking to manufacture against Assange.
What Galloway said was that, if this statement is true, then there is no case against Assange.
And Galloway is absolutely 100 per cent right.
Now, on the subject of this thread, I’ve never been an SWP member, but of course I’ve known many SWP members and have encountered the SWP many, many times.
I have plenty of differences with the SWP, but still, despite its recent deterioration, I’d still say I have a lot more political common ground with them than disagreements.
On the subject of sexism, in my experience, there is no organisation on the left that has been and remains as consistently and actively antisexist, anti-racist and anti-homophobic than the SWP.
The complaints listed above are pretty terrible I agree, but my view is that this stems from the “democratic-centralist” culture which all of the “leninist” organisations operate.
It’s a culture that leads to a habit of obedience, orders from above and non-questioning of the leadership.
It is this method that is at fault in my opinion. Almost a military-style discipline, which is clearly absurd in conditions of open legality.
I’m afraid this is turning reality on its head. At the time of the 2007 Respect split the SWP made some observations about sexism in Respect. A few years later Galloway makes some outrageous remarks about rape and his party fails to call him to account. The SWP decide not to recommend a vote for Respect as a result of this. Comrades regard criticising Galloway as somehow siding with the CIA. This is utterly ludicrous, not least because Galloway made generalised comments about bedroom behaviour.
So what we now have is a failure to call Galloway to account yet the spotlight is on the party that cited sexism in Respect back in 2007 and who opposed voting Respect in 2012 because of sexism. It is THEY who are guilty of institutionalised sexism. And who is doing the accusing? Comrades who differ with the SWP on just about every major issue, domestic or international. Comrades who regularly misrepresent the SWP position on other issues (and often make acusations about sexism in the middle of a totally unrelated discussion). Why should they be considered a reliable source? Comrades like Andy who regard Labour as ‘less sexist’ than the SWP when Labour famously chases after Rupert Murdoch’s approval!
The SWP is apparently guilty of sexism because of its ‘democratic centralism’. But Respect’s lack of criticism towards Galloway is all about their principled anti-imperialism? Yeah, right!
Of course if the SWP are going to debate sexism internally then that can only be a good thing- why would it not be, why would any left organisation not want to debate it? But threads like this do a major disservice to the left.
I should have said above NOT avoiding the issue using ‘whataboutary’.
Stuart – I think that whilst it is reasonable questioning the motivation of this thread, the argument here is about the SWP – the Labour Party courting the Murdoch press is a good topic and should not be used to avoid discussing the democratic – I would say more like bureaucratic – centralism of the SWP. The allegations are about real people being treated badly withing a political party which ostensibly opposes such behaviour.
I’m not sure threads like this do a disservice to the left – this is what the SWP contributors say when there is any thread concerning the SWP. Be honest: the SWP doesn’t like debate about the SWP period. The whole swathes of information and debates about the SWP present over the web shine a not always flattering light on the SWP and inevitably SWP members (or potential members) will read some of this stuff and give a variety of responses by asking questions to sticking their heads in the sand. For example, and going back many years, I didn’t have to be a supporter of the CBGB to read the Weekly Worker online and noticed that some of their stuff on the SWP resonated with one’s experiencefar more than the motivational speeches and denials coming from leading members of the SWP and it’s publications.
It is of course true that Trotskyist and other far-left groups do follow a so-called ‘democratic centralism’ which mimics in many respects a sort of ‘stalinism without state power’. One explanation was that what passed for ‘leninism’ among Trotskyists was actually ‘Zinovievism’, that is to say a practice mimicking that of the Comintern in the mid-20s, which was modelled on that of the Soviet Union when it was already highly undemocratic and bureaucratised.
Indeed the concepts of ‘Leninism’and ‘Trotskyism’ were both coined in the context of factional disputes in the 1920s to create a mythical ‘apostolic succession’ of continuous ideological consistency and correctness, which bears no relationship to internal arguments and line-ups in the kaleidoscopic and plural reality of Russia’s socialist movement before 1914.
Howard Kirk,
Let’s be clear. This is NOT a debate about sexism. It is a classic case of dog-whistling. It is an invitation to a bunch of people who for whatever reason have a political vested interest in kicking the SWP. Such is their desire to do so, they will regularly misrepresent the SWP over other issues, unrelated. What we will get is, quite predictably, a lot of vague gossip about alleged incidents.
Stuart – you are partly correct; it is not really about sexism, but about power. It is political, about the SWP’s lack of democracy making for all sorts of abuses of power, including dubious sexual goings on. Now, I never witnessed anything downright illegal, but I did witness things which made me think that I didn’t want to be with the SWP anymore. Some people say I’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because I no longer define myself as socialist. And my name is Legion.
stuart,
“This is utterly ludicrous, not least because Galloway made generalised comments about bedroom behaviour.”
Factually inaccurate. His remarks were not generalised, they were prefixed by the words “Not everybody”, not the word “everybody”.
“Not everybody” is not a generalisation, it says that in some specific cases people might behave differently and yet the activities still be consensual.
It is saying that the existing generalisation is wrong. It is the opposite of a generalisation, it is an attack on a generalisation. It says things are more varied, life is more complicated.
This is what I mean about a party leadership allocating itself the ‘right’ to tell people how to behave in their private lives, a sphere where neither the party or the state has any business intervening.
It’s actually an endorsement of New Labour’s often reactionary prescriptiveness in the sphere of personal relations, which is part and parcel of their particular strain of neo-liberal social authoritarianism.
I see no more reason to endorse New Labour’s approach to personal relationships than to endorse their wars.
stuart,
“Of course if the SWP are going to debate sexism internally then that can only be a good thing- why would it not be, why would any left organisation not want to debate it?”
Typical hackery and promotional blurb.
And cynical people like me might think that this is a move to consolidate the SWP round politics that are closer to New Labour-style ‘anti-sexism’ a la Harriet Harman et al, as per its (worse than) ‘guilty until proved innocent’ position on the Assange case.
“I’m not sure threads like this do a disservice to the left – this is what the SWP contributors say when there is any thread concerning the SWP. Be honest: the SWP doesn’t like debate about the SWP period.”
Howard, further back.
Absolutely. My own position.
And you said “period”.
Stuart, not everyone who opposes the CIA’s persecution of Assange is a Respect member or supporter – I’m not and not everyone who opposes the CIA’s persecution of Assange is an SWP hater – I’m not.
This is what I said about the SWP:
“I have plenty of differences with the SWP, but still, despite its recent deterioration, I’d still say I have a lot more political common ground with them than disagreements.
And “..in my experience, there is no organisation on the left that has been and remains as consistently and actively antisexist, anti-racist and anti-homophobic than the SWP.”
My main point on the subject of this thread is that I don’t think the SWP is sexist – it’s completely the opposite.
But that the culture created by the “democratic-centralism” method, a culture of obedience, of orders from above and of non questioning of the leadership is a culture in which bullying and abuse is far more likely to happen.
This method is not peculiar to the SWP, but is the method of all “leninist” organisations.
For me, that’s where the problem lies.
redscribe,
Do you agree with Rape Crisis?
‘Rape Crisis said the law was clear that if the woman was asleep when a sexual encounter began, consent cannot “reasonably” have been given and having had sex before did not give a man the right to have sex again at any time and assume consent.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19334598
David Ruaune,
Why should the SWP be comfortable with a debate, about them, being hosted by a team that regularly represents their views falsely in order to score political points? So the current thread about the SWP ‘descent into liberalism’ claims the SWP supports NATO intervention. This is not true.
That’s not a fair representation of democratic-centralism.
What we see in the SP/SWP etc etc isnt a fair representation of Democratic Centralism. This is the whole point of this discussion.
What we see in the SP/SWP etc etc isnt a fair representation of Democratic Centralism. This is the whole point of this discussion.
I was at the conference where some of the first news about Martin Smith and the student from Birmingham came out. It was obvious something was up because all the CC and their friends were huddled in corners whispering furiously – I thought it involved Alex Callinicos because he was holding meetings in side rooms with different groups. When Smith made a speech on the Saturday evening the atmosphere was horrible, really intimidating, a few women were in tears, with people shouting at them. Most of us didnt know what it was about, although Smith said he had had an affair that ended badly. I left the SWP right after that but I’ll never forget that ugly night.
#96 While I agree with you entirely (and precictably given my regular refrain on the subject on here) about the culture created by leninism, I think there is a danger in confusing ‘bullying’ generally with specifically sexist behaviour.
Clearly they are frequently linked, one is more likely to exist and be tolerated where the other also is etc.
But if an orgainsation has a culture where, for whatever reasons, what is being alleged here about the SWP is tolerated, then can such an organisation be said in reality to be as anti-sexist as you state no matter what their formal position might be? I think dismissing it as ‘bullying’ doesn’t do justice to the allegations.
In fact, as I have argued previously, I think some of the positions the SWP takes are a concession to some of the more reactionary variants of ‘feminism’, including the implications of what they have said about rape allegations.
But I also think that there’s an issue to do with the arrogance that goes with elitist organisational methods. Do as we say, not as we do.
stuart,
Do you agree with Julie Bindel that a women who awakens her sleeping partner with a sexual act is guilty of a sexual assault?
What ‘the law says’ and what is actually the case are often two completely different things. The law used to say that consensual anal sex between a man and a woman was an offence. The Blairite change of the law in 2003 repealed that idiocy, but replaced it, for instance with a law that says that underage teenagers who engage in ‘snogging’ with each other can be held to be guilty of a sexual offence.
Do you agree with that being criminalised?
I would point out that what the specific part of the same act you cite does appear to have the potential to criminalise some consensual acts, and also according to some lawyers reverses the burden of proof even where non-consensual acts are alleged but disputed. It is therefore quite conceivable that when the right test case comes along it could be overturned in the European court.
So just because some body says the law is such, does not mean that we should either endorse the law morally, or uphold that it is sustainable legally. Some laws are flawed, some laws are downright sinister, and many laws are unjust or potentially unjust.
I am sorry that I haven’t responded to this yet Andy. Busy as usual. Actually I kinda rather thought this was going to happen and I’d rather I hadn’t started. But since you and Jellytot have made certain innuendos I suppose I’m locked into responding. First, I agree with you. If an organisation “formally” says it is anti-sexist that does not of course mean it is. However I think the point I was trying to make based upon my experience was that the SWP often acted non-sexist-ly or tried to. And by this I mean the ordinary day to day members that I was familiar with and in some cases am still friends with. This of course does not preclude inappropriate behaviour from others whether they be a now dead ex-leader or a not so dead ex-member of the CC or even some “ordinary” and very definitely working class recruits that I can think of. As has been pointed out before by others the question is whether such behaviour is endemic and if it is whether you can prove that it is. In my view, as has also been pointed out elsewhere, it is also important to know whether the organisations in question have mechanisms in place to combat the behaviour of said individuals. I say organisations because I am sure that many organisatins of the left have soime issues including Respect and the LP. In fact given the huge size of the LP relative to the small trot groups there are probably more issues.
If I was unconcerned I wouldn’t bother to communicate my thoughts to you and the other comrades who write on SU.
You are clearly rounded and perfect in every fashion. Since trying to have an honest debate with you is of little point, I would like to take this opportunity to refute everything you have just inferred about me and point out that I am also rounded and perfect in every fashion.
@88Of course if the SWP are going to debate sexism internally then that can only be a good thing- why would it not be, why would any left organisation not want to debate it?
The SWP aren’t debating it because Callinicos or Kimber woke up one day and thought, “Hey, let’s debate sexism!”
You are being forced to debate it because of the alleged bullying (with a heavily sexist undercurrent) by a very senior figure that you’ve been parading around as a totem for years now.
@88The SWP decide not to recommend a vote for Respect as a result of this.
You used sexism as a cover, the real reason was mostly just old fashioned sectarianism.
I resent your obviously London-centric metropolitan attitude. And is it necessary to use such abusive language?I have no knowledge of such “circuits” of any sort but you clearly do. Given the fact that you refer to CC members I assume you think that such behaviour that you have referred to is not endemic across the SWP or other trot groups?
Here is another example of the consequences of New Labour’s attempt to regulate people’s personal lives.
Juries will often not convict when a law is obviously unjust, which itself has an impact on what the law ‘really’ is.
Do the SWP think this piece of New Labour authoritarianism should be defended by the left?
Stuart (97), brings up the “sleeping partner” argument yet again. It’s as if he’s actively attempting to breathe new life into the discredited CIA smear campaign against Assange.
Stuart, as you well know, because it has been explained to you time and time again, there is in existence, one, single statement by one person who says, in the statement and in her own words, that she chose to have consensual sex with Assange.
In the same statement, in her own words, this person also states that she does not want the involvement of the police crime victims unit.
This statement is the only statement made and it makes no reference whatsoever to any “sleeping partner”.
There is no statement from anyone claiming to be a “sleeping partner”.
On the question of “democratic-centralism” yes everyone who defends this method always responds to criticism of it in action by saying: “Yes, but that’s not proper democratic-centralism.”
But the defenders of this method are never able to point to a single example of democratic-centralism ever having worked satisfactorily in practice.
In practice it has always led to dictatorship.
It is an inherently flawed method and hugely increases the likelihood of bullying and abuse.
@redscribe. Just read your link, what this posh Tory twat had in his possession is absolutely disgusting, unsound and potentially harmful and quite rightly there should be laws against having these kinds of images. What has this got to do with New Labour? Are you seriously suggesting that the left should’t be against pornography? This kind of crude liberterianism has absolutely nothing in common with socialism, it is a hard right anything goes exploitative free market neo liberal ideology which we should have absolutely nothing do do with and that includes
pornography.
Overall, not a very productive discussion.
Can’t comment on the SWP, but as ex-Militant member – from 1992 – didn’t see much homophobia, if comrades (new recruits, usually) said something homophobic they were challenged leading comrades. I saw no evidence of abuse of power for sexual favours – the organisation was actually quite puritan on the whole. Many of the more effective newer leader were younger women (Hannah Sell, Lois Austin, Cat Grant). It seems that things may have been quite different in Scotand, though.
My family has been active in Labour Party for generations, though, and older members of the family will tell of incredibly sexist incidents – perhaps a thing if the past, and I haven’t seen anything disturbing since I joined – but women definitely not equally represented.
Organisations will inevitably represent the views of their members to some extent. True of the Chinese Communist Party today, the Bolsheviks of 1917, the unions, Labour and even the SWP. Without stronger evidence I’m not inclined to judge the SWP as any more rotten than the rest of us.
dazed and confused,
Well its good that the jury did not agree, isn’t it.
As for calling him a ‘tory twat’ in this context, presumably you would be happy if Jewish bourgeois were to be rounded up by neo-Nazis? Or perhaps you think only Tories get turned on by this kind of thing?
Our friend obviously believes something rather similar to the view that “homosexuality is a bourgeois deviation”.
What has this to do with New Labour? Are you thick? The law was passed in 2008 under New Labour.
You find his sexual behaviour ‘disgusting’? Is that because he is gay?
Seems like it to me. The state has no business telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do in terms of sexual practices.
AND THE JURY AGREED.
Wow, the reactionaries are out in the open. In the old days, homophobes thought homosexuality was ‘absolutely disgusting’ and tried to ban it. Now it is a subset of homosexual behaviour that they tried to ban as ‘absolutely disgusting’. Or rather depictions of it – the acts themselves are legal.
In any case, the jury acquittal is to be applauded. Some would say it was a mini-Stonewall in the legal sphere. If this law had been enforced, a real new Stonewall against the police would have been justified – that is a riot against bigots like ‘Dazed and Confused’.
I think that, notwithstanding my own disagreements with them, that the SWP very definitely has has a significantly progressive impact on society in the UK.
Its unyeilding policy of confronting organised racism played a hugely positive role in taking on and defeating the NF in the late 1970s, in the fight against the BNP in the 1990s and the 2000s and against the EDL in the last few years.
Of course, many, many non-SWP people participated in these struggles, but the SWP was the organisational and political backbone of these struggles.
And let’s not forget that other significant left-wing currents opposed the strategy of direct confrontation – some arguing that these racist movements were just a reflection of capitalism, that these racist movements were insignificant in themselves and that only socialism could end racism.
But these movements were confronted and defeated and the UK is the only country in Europe that does not have fascist MPs and the only country in Europe where anti-racism is the mainstream and dominant orthodoxy.
I think the work of the SWP has had a positive impact here.
On gay rights again, much of the left saw this as a self-indulgent diversion and not something to fight for. But the SWP took a militant and actively pro-gay rights stance when this was an unpopular position to take. When taking this position opened you up to ridicule. It was for many the only place on the left where gay people were able to feel comfortable with their sexuality.
Today, the UK leads the world in gay rights legislation and again this has become the mainstream orthodoxy.
I think the work of the SWP has played a part in this and had a positive impact.
The campaign against the Iraq War brought over a million people (some said two million) out on the streets in protest. And I think the SWP had a progressive impact there too.
And there is also the day-to-day work of their members in the union movement.
So when I criticise aspects of SWP policy – its appalling stance over Libya and its craven capitulation to the CIA’s “get Assange” project – it’s within the context of an overall appreciation of the huge positive impact the SWP has had in general terms.
SWP comrades need to appreciate that their friends do have criticisms – and valid criticisms – and they should not immediately assume that every critic is an enemy of their party.
Jota,
Observing from outside, the description of the millies as sexually puritan matches my experience, and would resonate with Grants own monkish personality.
The less than supportive approach to LGBT issues was really in the 1970s, and it is hypocrisy for the SWP to bang on about it, as they had only adopted a gay rights position some 5 years earlier.
However, I did observe with my own eyes white militant members wearing black face make up to pretend to be Cameroon, at the 1990 summer camp in the Forest of Dean, for a “world cup” themed 5a side competition
MB,
Bye bye then
An accurate and balanced assessment of the SWPs positive contribution towards shaping the contours of the UK politically these past 40 years Karl Stewart.
Its also worth remembering that the comrades have been instrumental in the creation of quite a large body of people (through their inability to stem the’revolving door’ membership problem) who would still regard themselves as ideologically committed socialists despite their disagreements with the SWP’s often questionable methodology.
The persistent and miserable sectarian positioning represented by Andy Newman on here will be deplored by most of those who still hold on to the idea that a better world is possible.
ghost,
This is a ridiculous point. If the SWP are a serious political organisation then they will be discussed and dissected by those who do not agree with them, or may be hostile to.them.
That is what happens to mainstream political parties.
If the SWP regard being discussed politically as unwelcome, then that is the mindsst of a cult not a political party.
redcogs,
I remember Rogers Cox speaking at an educational meeting in Bristol in the 1980s observing that the lasting impact of the IS industrial strategy was to deter a generation of trade union miitabts from looking to the CP,
The exaggerated profile of tritskyism in Britain has led to a weaker left overall, IMO.
Karl Stewart,
Your description of the SWP ‘s impact reminds me of Cliffs old parable of the fly sitting on the ox’s head, and at the end if the day the fly says “my, look how much we have ploughed today ”
In the rich complex history of modern british society and politics it is too simplistic to attribute those achievements to the SWP.
@redscribe. I wasn’t making a judgment on that particular individual’s sexual practices which are quite rightly his and other consenting adults business whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant as nowhere did I mention his sexual orientation being an issue. He was charged with possession of illegal pornography not sexual acts. My opinion on this kind of material is the same whether its of a homosexual or heterosexual nature. I wasn’t discriminating.
#111 I’ve now read the link that redscribe posted.
My reaction to the story is essentially ‘disgusting, but none of my business or that of the state’ (or of your’s for that matter).
My reaction to you, is to ask why someone’s politics or general character is of any relevance to whether they are guilty of criminal behaviour (assuming it is criminal) or should be taken to task for such behaviour?
I don’t know which if any left group you’re a member of but if it has the same attitude to the rule of law that you appear to demonstrate here I would not wish to live in a society where it had its hands anywhere near the levers of state power.
What difference would it make if he was someone whose class or politics was more ‘sound’? Would it make a difference as to whether he was ‘guilty’? Would it make their behaviour any less criminal?
Andy, until recently, in my experience, I always found that, if someone was an active marxist and openly gay, they’d have invariably have been an SWP member.
It’s also the case that if someone was an active marxist and a feminist, then that person would have invariably been an SWP member.
It was and still is, the anti-racist, pro-feminist, pro-gay rights party of the left.
They even take their feminism to ridiculous lengths on occaision. recall being roundly scolded – ridiculously so – by two female SWP members when I was selling Morning Stars at a public meeting for saying: “Come on ladies, come and buy the Morning Star.”
They were furious – even though I hadn’t been talking to them – and told me: “We’re not ‘ladies’ we’re women.”
Needless to say, my cheery response: “I wasn’t talking to you love, it was those other two ladies over there,” was not well received!
The serious point is that the SWP is absolutely not a sexist party – it’s the complete opposite. And theissues raised in this article are issues of bullying and abuse, which in my opinion are far more likely to occur under any “democratic-centralist” regime.
This is the problem, it’s a profoundly bullying system, one which is bizarrely fetishised by all of the leninist organisations. It’s real reason for the “revolving door” of people regularly leaving.
dazed and confused,
Ok, fair enough as regards not actually attacking him for being gay.
But his politics are irrelevant to this case. In arguing that, you show you have some latent programmatic issues involving sex and democratic rights.
The acts depicted are legal as they cannot be shown to be harmful. Why should depictions of legal sexual acts be illegal?
What is also disturbing about what you said was your view that the acts depicted are ‘absolutely disgusting’ and therefore he was rightly prosecuted. This is still an intolerance of sexual acts you subjectively consider disgusting, even though there is no dispute that they were between consenting adults.
If the images were of children being abused, then it would be right for a prosecution to take place because the acts themselves are rightly illegal and odious. But if the acts depicted are legal, then banning their depiction (in attachments to private emails!) is indeed a reactionary form of authoritarianism.
If you wish to ban all depictions of sex, then you have a society of which Mary Whitehouse would have approved. If you want to ban some depictions of sex based on what particular groups of legislators find distasteful, then that is making a law out of prejudice.
It sets a precedent for banning something some (not others) feel to be distasteful that could very easily be used, given a shift in the political climate, to justify criminalising other sexual acts which some disapprove of.
There is nothing ‘libertarian’ about this position. It is a basic democratic position. The objective test is whether those involved are consenting adults and whether the acts are actually sexual (e.g to give an extreme example, cutting someone’s genitals off is not a sexual act).
I don’t want to live in a Mary Whitehouse society, thank you very much.
Jellytot,
It is important to stress that we are not comparing like with like.
The SWP has never claimed that all of its members will behave in a non-sexist way all of the time. It is no position to do that. But what it does strive for, officially, is to combat sexism (an inevitable product of class society) as an organisation, it is part of its socialist project. Of course the SWP is an organisation with a formal structure that has over several decades included thousands of different individuals who will relate to each other, and the wider world, in various ways.
Given that background, it would be very easy for someone so politically inclined to use a blog to make vague allegations which by their very nature can be neither proved nor disproved. And in so doing they can encourage other posters to intervene with their own particular differences with the SWP which is what is happening here. If you want to play that particular sectarian card (a card which seems to have been played ever since the Respect split), go ahead, nobody can stop you. You obviously see it as one of your best opportinities to score political points.
But we need to ask ourselves why parties such as Labour and Respect are institutionally unable to combat sexism. Why did Labour devote so much effort in winning Murdoch’s approval? Because they wanted to gain votes. For Labour it is more important to win votes than challenge Murdoch’s sexism. Why did Respect fail to challenge Galloway’s outrageous remarks on rape? Because for Respect, not opposing Galloway is more important than challenging his sexism.
If you want to have a real debate over sexism you have to look at the wider picture.
SWP join the WRP, IMG & SSP
I spent a few years in the SWP, and the behaviour of rank and file comrades was much less racist/homophobic/sexist than behaviour I encountered in the outside world.
What was much more prevalent was a bullying culture whereby anyone who questioned “The Party” was ridiculed, undermined and ostracised. This was done by both men and women.
Martin Smith has had a number of women accuse him of coercive behaviour, and the SWP response has been to vilify the accusers and their friends, and to manufacture a smokescreen of “they’re all out to get us”. Meanwhile Smith gets to play the victim.
The SWP were once a lively outward looking left group who I think really did contribute to changes in British society. They are now a small sect with an ageing membership who are highly irrelevant to the struggles we face in Britain today.
stuart,
When you talk about Labours alleged inability or combat sexism, can you perhaps acknowledge the Equal pay act, the equality act, all women short lists, gender balancing, working tax credits, the minimum wage, sure start centres, etc.
stuart,
You can hide behind all tha bollocks about “unsubstantiated” but what i am saying is true, and o pit my reputation on the line by saying it
You in contrast hide behind a pseudonym.
Stuart, you’re lying once again.
You ask:
“Why did Respect fail to challenge Galloway’s outrageous remarks on rape?”
This is a lie Stuart and it’s been pointed out to you time and time again.
These were Galloway’s comments about rape:
“No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape.”
There is absolutely nothing “outrageous” about those comments.
Stop lying Stuart.
“Why did Respect fail to challenge Galloway’s outrageous remarks on rape?”
I believe Nadia Chern has already stated that an internal inquiry was held into the issue. More to the point,however, is that there is a considerable difference between remarks made by GG, which were just remarks, and the covering up of instances of sexual coercion and forcing “uncooperative” women out of an organisation ( or sidelining them).
Stuart, it’s people like you who lie repeatedly out of unthinking and clone-like blind obedience to “the line,” and continue to mindlessly repeat the same lies again and again who turn others against the SWP.
@119I remember Roger Cox speaking at an educational meeting in Bristol in the 1980s observing that the lasting impact of the IS industrial strategy was to deter a generation of trade union miitabts from looking to the CP
There’s a blast from the past.
A man who, at the time of the Liberal merger with the SDP, announced proudly (when speaking of the SWP):
“We’re the real liberals”
@114Its (The SWP’s) unyeilding policy of confronting organised racism played a hugely positive role in taking on and defeating the NF in the late 1970s, in the fight against the BNP in the 1990s and the 2000s and against the EDL in the last few years
I would take serious issue with all of that.
They certainly “took on” all three organisations during those times. Whether their strategy and the tactics employed were key to defeating those groups is a matter of considerable debate.
Don’t fall for the myth-making.
@117Its also worth remembering that the comrades have been instrumental in the creation of quite a large body of people (through their inability to stem the’revolving door’ membership problem) who would still regard themselves as ideologically committed socialists despite their disagreements with the SWP’s often questionable methodology.
It’s hard to quantify. Given the tens of thousands of people who have passed through the party, how many could still seriously be considered left socialists today?
You could just as easily imagine that their experience of the “control freakery” and lack of democracy in such parties would put them off organised left politics forever.
@127127.I spent a few years in the SWP, and the behaviour of rank and file comrades was much less racist/homophobic/sexist than behaviour I encountered in the outside world.
Wouldn’t you expect them to be ?!
#134 I certainly think that the anti-fascism of the 70s and early 80s was effective.
ANL mark 2 with posters saying dont’t vote for the BNP in places they weren’t standing (I even saw one on Great Western Street in Moss Side ffs!!) and stickers claiming places with a high density of facists and correspondingly low level of anti-fascist activity to be “nazi free zones” slightly less so.
Does anyone who was around in Manchester in the early 90s remember that Holts’ pub that was picketed btw?
Labour as a party are committed to the successful management of capitalism, therefore they will be unable fight against sexism in any fundamental way. Labour’s objective is to win votes and not make any serious challenge to capitalism. The reforms you list does not threaten these basic goals. Labour looks to ingratiate itself with the sexist media.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1991084.stm
If you defend the Labour party in a debate on sexism you are not addressing the topic with credibility.
I am not lying. You keep banging on about how Galloway said nothing wrong. That is your opinion, it is one that I’m very relieved to say the SWP does not share. Galloway is vague when it comes to what constitutes consent. He is wrong to be so and the SWP are right to criticise him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19334598
The difference is that the Galloway remarks are public, as a result Respect is on trial in terms of how they handle it. They failed the test through their public silence. If the SWP had supported Galloway or played down the remarks they to would have failed in meeting the standards expected of a socialist organisation seriously committed to opposing sexism.
The last bit of what you say is nothing more than an allegation about an allegation that has found its way onto a blog. You talk as if it is established fact. It cannot be compared with Galloway.
stuart,
“And in so doing they can encourage other posters to intervene with their own particular differences with the SWP which is what is happening here.”
This is very revealing. Presumably, people expressing “their own particular differences” with the SWP is a bad thing and should not be tolerated.
I concur that Stuart is behaving in a brainwashed cultist manner, in that he challenged me to criticise a particular clause in New Labour’s Sexual Offences Act (2003) as if it were holy writ, and to defend the thrust of Galloway’s remarks on rape. When I did so, instead of engaging with my criticisms of his (as I see it) flawed logic on these things, we get him repeating exactly the words about Galloway’s ‘terrible’ remarks without addressing the criticisms of his logic or even acknowledging that they were made.
He accused Galloway of making generalisations. When I pointed out that his remarks were actually the exact opposite of a generalisation, he failed to address or refute these points, but repeats his original statements word-for-word without even acknowledging that his points had been directly refuted in logical terms. Or conversely, refuting the refutations.
This is the same as putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and singing ‘la-la-la I’m not listening’…
It really does make him look like a logically challenged member of a religious sect.
stuart,
“The difference is that the Galloway remarks are public, as a result Respect is on trial in terms of how they handle it. ”
Only in the minds of your psuedo-Marxist liberal sect and other like-minded liberals. For many anti-imperialists it is the SWP who are on trial for touting for a CIA frame-up, and for witchhunting those who stand up against it.
Not very many women contributing to this thread. For whatever reason …
SSDO,
They must all be otherwise engaged on your blog with commenters like Will Rubbish and Jimmy the Shankhill Butcher, n’est-ce pas?
redscribe,
The SWP are clear that Assange should not be taken to the US against his will. However, if women are making allegations they should be taken seriously, if people in general and socialists in particular are seen not to do this, then women effectively suffer across the board. And Galloway’s remarks about entitlements to penetration because of being in a ‘sex-game’ are most unhelpful when it comes to advancing the rights of women. Any socialist organisation should criticise such judgements.
Stuart,
Galloway’s remarks on the crime of rape are absolutely crystal clear, there is absolutely nothing “vague” about his comments and this has been quoted to you repeatedly:
“No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape.”
It really couldn’t be clearer and yet you continually repeat the “line” that Galloway has made some “outrageous rape comments.” Which is a clear lie and you know it.
But now you start to try to defend your lie by asking what the word “consent” actually means, in a manner reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s “it depends what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
In the specific instance of the CIA’s attempt to manufacture a “case” against Assange, the word “consensual” was the word used by the woman who claimed to have chosen to have consensual sex with Assange.
Stuart, “consensual” was her word, that she used, in her own statement.
This statement was and remains the only statement relating to the non-case against Assange.
It really couldn’t be clearer Stuart.
Currently, Bradley Manning is being tortured in a US jail and is facing a potential 50-year prison sentence. The US wants to do the same to Assange for the crime of telling people the truth.
Your persistence with this moronic and mindless repetition of lies is helping the US in this aim.
Every time you repeat your lies on this, it makes it that little bit more likely that Assange will be thrown into a US jail,
Every time you repeat your lies, it makes it that little bit more likely that Assange will be tortured as Manning is being,
Every time you repeat your lies on this, it makes it that little bit more likely that Assange will either face a lengthy prison sentence or perhaps even be executed in the US.
This isn’t a game Stuart, this isn’t just a bit of harmless and infantile sectarian knockabout between you and Galloway.
A man’s life is at stake – think about that before you lie again Stuart.
@136I certainly think that the anti-fascism of the 70s and early 80s was effective.
Yes, but only as a component in a mix of factors.
Anti-fascism played a part but so too did Thatcher’s strident and increasingly rightwing leadership of the Conservative opposition, a still very strong Unionised mass WC culture, internal fissures, tensions and splits within the fascists themselves, England’s distinctive and peculiar social mores and political culture that has always been a barrier to fascist parties breaking into the “mainstream”, the not insignicant factor that the NF, by late 1977, were on the decline anyway….etc.
The myth of Lewisham and the claim that the ANL were soley and wholey reponsible for the NF’s demise (a claim that is still current on the Left) are false.
The stuff about the ANL in the 1990′s, 2000′s and the UAF in regards to the EDL more recently is even more counter-factual.
stuart,
“if women are making allegations they should be taken seriously”
‘Taken seriously’ in this context means ‘accepted without question’.
If the SWP had been around in the days of the Scotsboro’ Boys case, they would by this logic have condemned the International Labor Defence for ‘not taking seriously’ those women who accused these young black men of rape.
Any putative left-wing group would have been objectively in the camp of the Ku Klux Klan and other racists if it had taken such a position.
There are reasonable grounds to suspect CIA involvement in an attempt to frame-up Assange. The involvement of his only accuser with reactionary Cuban emigre politicos is an incredible coincidence which defies credibility.
And there are also other reasonable grounds to believe that the statement of the other supposed accuser is not her work but that of a policewoman. It is a fact that she refused to sign this statement.
And then there is the deliberate and illegal leaking of material in this case by the Swedish state to the bourgeois media right at the beginning of the putative investigation. Activities like this by the British police eventually gave birth to Operation Weeting.
And then there is the peculiar fact that a British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, threatened to break the long established Vienna convention on diplomatic inviolability of embassies over the Assange case to enforce a European Arrest Warrant, even though Conservative Party policy is to withdraw from the European Arrest Warrant. The only reasonable explanation for this is that they were doing it to please the United States, not European institutions that they rarely miss an opportunity to insult.
Logically, the SWP’s position means we are not allowed to criticise this either, as it amounts to saying that Assange is being framed and ‘not taking seriously’ Anna Ardin’s accusations.
Uncritically accepting these allegations puts those who advocate such a position in the camp of the CIA, just as if some misguided group had advocated a similar position in the Scotsboro case would have been objectively in the racist camp.
The fact is that no-one cares about Martin smith or George Galloway in any significant way. Both fucked up in their own ways despite both being genuine forces in their respective niches. But the SWP are irrelevant right now. Mark Steele’s point in his book about their inability to even see this speaks volumes. That’s why most people don’t flirt with the SWP longer than Fresher’s week. Respect too are on a slippery slope. Galloway did a huge injustice to women with his crass remarks which the likes of Salma Yaqoob rightfully condemned. He had to learn that lesson. Now more key memebers are leaving. Again,the Left implode beacuse of home-grown issues/quirks when the real enemy fails even to unite them.
Watching Milliband and Balls get steam-rollered by a bunch of criminally incompetent,Etonian tosspots was hard to watch. How is it that there is no significant resistance on the scale of the anti-Iraq war movement over these cuts? Surely building a mass movement against the neoliberal gravediggers has got to be a priority. All this other stuff is IRRELEVANT. Big fish in a piss puddle irrelevant.
Never mind the cuts or the attack on the welfare state; it’s much more amusing to have a go at the SWP.
We are building such a movement in Lewisham against the attempt to cut health services.http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2012/11/25/save-lewisham-hospital-ae-photos-of-the-massive-protest-on-november-24-2012/
The estimate of 10,000 participating in the demonstration is not the usual lefty exaggeration. It is an objective measure. They were almost all local people. That means we mobilised approaching 5 per cent of the adult population of the borough.
see also:
http://www.savelewishamhospital.com/
http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk/
Or perhaps:
Never mind that a man is being tortured in a US jail and that the CIA is manufacturing a “case” to destroy another man’s character in order to do the same to him, hey guys, here’s an opportunity for some trivial sectarian point scoring against Galloway!
Never mind that we’re helping the CIA!
And hey guys, whatever you do, don’t think, don’t disagree, don’t argue and don’t question the infallible leadership – there’s leaflets to hand out and papers to sell, so just do as you’re told and get on with it!
stuart,
#139
Your flare for the melodramatic doesn’t change the fact that no “trial” is needed where RESPECT is concerned because GG’s remarks caused a minor ripple in the mainstream (largely because most people, outside of politico/activist circles, didn’t think his remarks particularly controversial). As for RESPECT and their female membership, you may have noticed they just stood a female candidate in Rotherham who didn’t seem particularly vexed by GG’s remarks. Aside from Ms. Yaqoob and Ms. Hudson, there doesn’t appear to be a mass exodus of female members from the party.
And your characterisation of the Martin Smith saga as ” an allegation about an allegation” even though YOUR OWN PARTY HAVE TAKEN ACTION AGAINST HIM is rather pathetic,given the further evidence being presented about the internal culture of the SWP.
George Hallam,
That’s excellent news George. The hospital situation in London is looking truly dire at the moment.
redscribe,
The comparison with Scottsboro doesn’t hold up. Are you saying it is as easy for a woman to win a case against a man today in Western Europe as it is for a white person to convict a black person in 1930s Deep South?
And I reject the idea that the SWP have a soft position on the US angle. The case is set out here…..
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=29382
Karl Stewart,
It is silly to suggest that the SWP are assisting the CIA. The position is set out here….
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=29382
No concsessions to the US but I would urge a more sensitive attitude towards women who report rape and/or sexual assault.
Omar,
I think you are wrong to see.Galloway’s remarks as minor. If that represents Respect then that’s not good IMO. You offered details about Martin Smith. I know nothing about this situation. How are you getting your information?
Stuart,
How do you get your information regarding Respect, given that it is continuously so hopelessly wrong?
Is it from BrokenWindow who seems to know as little as you?
At least, your elected strategy of ignoring all debate and boring everyone to death on threads has given way to something more scintillating – spouting nonsense as analysis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2012/aug/21/george-galloway-julian-assange-sexual-rape-video
http://www.leninology.com/2012/10/respect-why-we-resign.html
In 1977 the National Front were not on the wane. People came out on the streets to oppose them and put their own physical safety at risk and often their careers as they risked arrest and conviction in the courts for opposing the NF on the streets.
Lewisham was a turning point and from then on the NF was forced back. No one is claiming the SWP defeated the NF on its own, but it made a huge contribution and stood along side the black community of Lewisham.
It is demeaning to hear socialists insult the people who fought against the NF at Lewisham, when we need to promote that spirit of resistance against the present Government onslaught against the working class.
Stuart,
You’ve been told endlessly and it’s been repeatedly explained to you numerous times that the CIA smear campaign against Assange has absolutely zero substance.
Yet you continue to tirelessly and relentlessly post your pro-CIA comments postings on here, completely ignoring the facts that refute each and every one of the CIA’s smears.
Your doggedness to the point of obsessiveness on behalf of the CIA is frankly a little disturbing.
@159No one is claiming the SWP defeated the NF on its own, but it made a huge contribution and stood along side the black community of Lewisham.It is demeaning to hear socialists insult the people who fought against the NF at Lewisham
I have heard SWP speakers (notably Weymann Bennett) claim that the SWP were the ones who “smashed” the NF in the 70′s and also claim that the SWP were the ones ultimately responsible for the societal improvement in race relations seen in the 80′s and 90′s in Britain. Bennett tells a story how in the 70′s it would be dangerous for a black person to enter into the NF stronghold of Hoxton, east of Old Street Station. Ten years later that wasn’t the case, he states. To quote him, “That was because of the SWP”.
I am not insulting anybody and have the highest regard for those who have physically combatted against fascists (I have done this myself). However, the grandstanding and hyperbole surrounding those times is ahistorical and dangerous in regards to devising strategies for the future.
None of this really surprises me and i think the ‘phallic hierarchy’ of the SWP Central committee operates on a micro-level at branch level.
My experience of the SWP in Slough in the eighties was that some of the older leading members – including a well-heeled city based business man- were clearly only members because the organisation gave them access to a new tranche of impressionable teenage female students every year.
I suspect that without the sexual opportunities granted by party membership the organisation would collapse as long-standing male activists would leave as they felt unrewarded by their sacrifices to keep the smallest mass party in the word afloat.
In short -no sexism- no party.
Lesley2525: I’ve been a member in two large districts and a small town over 26 years. I don’t recognise the picture you are painting. Over the years there have been (obviously) plenty of people jumping into bed with each other, but the idea that there is a party-wide phenomena of male members ‘harvesting’ younger female members is bollocks. In one of the colleges in the North east i remember a case where an experienced SWSS member got disciplined precisely for straying into that kind of territory.
The allegation that has led to this is a serious one, and it will be taken extremely seriously by delegates at conference. the other allegations involving the leadership being made on this thread (involving ppl who are dead or have parted company with the swp)are also serious, but I’ve never come across anyone who claims to have experienced it.
I have observed this myself, and there is one person in particular i can think of. However, it is also true that people can rationalise to themselves their decisions about being in a group like the SWP on more polotical grounds, while the baser grounds which make the experience convivial to them remain not conscioulsy acknowleged; that is why the issue of sexism is an institutional one, bound up with power, heirarchy and pressure of group conformity.
stuart, you are commended for maintaining good humour and sticking with your argument, even though to the objective observer, you are spouting all sorts of foolishness.
But here you surely cannot be serious. Despite hicoughs and bumps in the road, we do live in a society that is much less sexist than it was 50 years ago; and that societal and attitudinal shift has not derived from the far margins of the “revolutionary” left, but from mainstream political campaigns, from academia, trade unions, womens groups; et al. Fundamental to these shifts has been a legislative programme that has actually led and not followed public opinion, that has been pushed through by the Labour Party, over several decades.
Your position that only the “revolutionary left” can really challenge sexism leads to a vastly exaggerated evaluation of the importance of small political groups on the fringe of society; and in so far as this sort of argument exaggerates the indispensibility of an organisation like the SWP, it bolsters the pressure to preserve the reputation and integrity of the party, even if it means turning a blind eye to abuses of power and gender privilege.
stuart,
“Are you saying it is as easy for a woman to win a case against a man today in Western Europe as it is for a white person to convict a black person in 1930s Deep South?”
That assumes the non-involvement of the CIA.
It is very difficult for anyone, male or female, to win a case when a charge is orchestrated by the CIA.
So you are condemned by the very assumptions you make. The CIA corrupts justice where it is involved just as much as the KKK and similar outfits did in the Deep South.
In dismissing this, you are dismissing CIA involvement tout court, or else saying the CIA is benign and does not corrupt justice.
All the abstract anti-imperialist rhetoric in the world does not compensate for this position, which in the concrete is pro-imperialist.
Don’t assume that people who comment from behind pseudonyms, or even who adopt a “male persona” on the Internet are always men.
andy newman,
I never said that positive changes in attitudes are down to the revolutionary left or as you put it, only the revolutionary left can really challenge sexism. A greater proportion of women joining the workforce and upsurges in class struggle will be extremely important factors behind certain legislative gains. But I think the SWP is right to say that sexism is a product of class society and that Labour will not effectively challenge it. They may preside over some reforms when capitalism can afford them- Labour can never be a vehicle for seriously eridicating sexism.
The fact that the SWP is right to point to the limitations of reformism is no guarantee that it can itself be an ‘island of socialism’ in which members’ behaviour is always exemplary. I don’t believe the SWP has ever claimed to be that.
redscribe,
I believe that the link I offered you at post 154 does a good job at balancing the need to take women seriously against the wider political considerations. It takes other vested interests very seriously indeed.
But in any case, as I’ve argued repeatedly, whatever one thinks of the Assange case specifically, the Galloway remarks were uncalled for. It is this particular point that has crucial relevance to the sexism debate.
There was an ‘All London Defend NHS’ meeting on Thursday
meeting at Portcullis House.
It was well attended with lots of campaign groups giving reports about the multifarious attacks on services and measures taken to resist them. It was convened by some Labour MPs, though that did not prevent some people from criticising the Labour Party for its half-hearted defence of the NHS.
One veteran campaigner from Hackney made the interesting point that if the leaders of the Labour Party made a pledge to revoke, without compensation, any privatisation deals then that would kill the process. Of course, the leaders of the Labour Party won’t do this, which tells one a lot about where they stand.
The idea of a national demonstration (February?) was floated.
What needs to be done now (apart from mass campaigning, of course) is an effort to link up the campaigns in all the boroughs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KtKjRCK9pCk#t=203s
stuart,
That article concretely dismisses the notion of a CIA honeytrap against Assange, when in fact there is considerable evidence that points to that. Not a ‘balanced’ position at all. That is not unconnected to the attacks on Galloway and others in SW for making this very point, as well as the rest of the viruperation of the liberal media against Galloway, Naomi Wolf, and others who have questioned the veracity of the so-called evidence.
stuart,
#156
Just for the record, I don’t claim to speak for RESPECT or any other party, as I’m affiliated with none.
I remember Andy Newman in the SWP in Bristol. I remember the laddism and sexism emanating from him and his small group of “witty” mates. I remember the then full-time organiser, Helen Shooter, having to have words with him about his attitude to women because his laddish behaviour was discouraging women from contributing to discussions or even attending events. Laddism was the term used then… I would suggest boorish sexism as a more appropriate phrase to describe his behaviour then. I hope he has grown up and matured twenty years on.
Jim Smith,
Hilarious. What did characterise the SWP at that time in bristol was a sancimonious middle class atmosphere reflectin the worst lifestyle moralism of the meusli eating feminist milieau. So in fact grossly sexist behaviour was tolerated from alpha male members as long as they conformed to the accepted linguistic codes and fitted into the guardian reading lifestyle choices.
Meawhile, there was no toleration at all for the working class young men who occasionally discussed beer and football.
redscribe,
But this is a debate about the SWP and sexism. You are trying to bolt on a separate argument about Assange and the motivations of the CIA. But the SWP are clear that Assange should not become the subject of US ‘revenge’.
The SWP position is further set out…
‘But stopping the US locking up Assange for his role in exposing US imperialism does not make trivialising rape acceptable. That is why George Galloway was wrong to say what he did last week.’
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=29389
You may choose to disagree with that but it doesn’t add weight the proposition that the SWP is sexist.
stuart,
“You may choose to disagree with that but it doesn’t add weight the proposition that the SWP is sexist.”
I never particularly argued that the SWP is sexist. If you read through my posts, I only started intervening on this thread when you smeared all those who defended Galloway as somehow trying to divert attention by starting a supposedly spurious debate about SWP sexism.
My charge is not particularly that the SWP is sexist – though I see no reason to defend it against that charge from people more ‘in the loop’ than me – but that it is capitulating to imperialism.
Do you think being concerned about CIA involvement in framing up Assange, and not dismissing the background of Anna Ardin in intervening in Cuban politics (highly unusual for a Swedish political activist) is sexist?
Because that is the implication of that article in SW. That is a pro-imperialist position that smears those who are concerned about CIA involvement as being sexist.
This is specifically untrue. It is perhaps worth going into a bit more detail to illustrate how the SWP works, for those who have not expereinced it.
At a social event, I said the pork scratchings were horrible and disgusting. A third party who overheard inexplicably thought I was referring to something else (nothing to do with sexism). At 9:00 am the next morning, (sunday) Helen Shooter rang me and told me I had to attend a disciplpinary hearing to discuss it, in half an hour later. Where three or 4 sanctimoniuous middle class lifestyle socialists told me off for ill defined “laddism”; my freind who they summoned for a seperate meeting simply refused to go. Helen Shooter refered it to ehat was then called the control commission, who told her not to be so silly; and that was the end of it.
However, ever since then, whenever I challenged power structures or received opinion within the SWP, this alleged “laddim” was given life as a whispering campaign.
Interestinglly, the alleged “sexism” of me and my friends did not involve our attitudes or behaviour towards women. We were judged to be ” sexist” because we talked about football, had skipped a branch meeting to watch England play on the telly, we supported England in the football, we drank beer, and we socialised with other people outside the SWP. All apparently evidnece of our “laddishness” and “sexism”.
This is in fact an excellent example about how group think punished non-conformity.
This was by the way not the example I referred to in the original article about spurious claims of sexism; I know of at least one person driven out the SWP after an utterly false accusation of an alleged sexual assault was used against him; paradoxicallly in a branch where one leading member was knocking seven shades of shit out of his female partner on a regular basis, and when this abuse was (eventually) referred to the control commission, he was simply advised to get counselling; he was after all a leading militant in the CPSA, and therefore the SWP couldn’t aford to lose him.
The other thing that is interesting about this, is that there was no-one in Bristol at the time called “Jim Smith”, so someone has chosen to deliberately hide behind a pseudonym to protect their own identity, while making allegations against me.
i.e., they are using the anonymity of the Internet not as a shield but as a sword.
Helen Shooter was by the way a spectacularly useless full time organiser, who didn’t know anything, and couldn’t do anything. When she was appointed a full timer, JOhn MOlyneux, who had previously had her in his branch as a student member at Portsmouth Poly, rang up the centre to complain at just how eccentirc the decision was.
Helen was a liablity whenever she came up to the Poly, because she was unable to sustain a conversation about anything except “party building”, so the (in SWP jargon) periphery we had at the Poly were a challenge for her; she could talk to the lost souls atracted t the SWP for providing an all encompasing social life; but in particular there were two young men around (one of them black) who were interested in boxing, and had a life, and who therefore were interested more in the way the SWP might actualy be politically effective. I remember on more than one occassion Helen Shooter simply ignoring them to the point of rudeness when we were sitting in the canteen.
One of the beefs that Helen Shooter had with me was that we organised a Friday paper between 5:00pm and 6:00 pm, which was mainly done be me and my friends. Although Helen was a full time organiser, and was therefore by definition, not otherwise committed at that time, she refused to do this sale. She then argued that there shouldn’t be sales of all men, and tried to close it down – the other alternative that she could do it herself, thus ensuring that there was a gender mix was unpalatable because she preferred to spend time only with those SWP members who were deferential to her becasue she was a full timer. The paper sale issue, therefore became a manufaactured issue allegedly about “laddism”, but realy about not showing enough deference to authority within the SWP.
I hesitate to mention that there was no allegation of sexism against those older male SWP members who were supportive of Helen for transparently lecherous reason
The Marxist or self-designated Marxist left, not just the SWP, was one of the first places where I encountered what I sometimes call the “Woody Allen syndrome”. That is, middle-aged or even elderly males carrying on relationships with much younger women, ie. 20 or more years younger.
Well, the SWP wouldn’t be the SWP if it didn’t simply try to ignore the ginormous elephant in the room known as imperialism, ie, the USA, its intelligence services and its various allies/clients such as Britain.
#180 I don’t think it’s right to cast aspertions on people’s private lives without evidence there’s something abusive going on. In this case you’re potentially demeaning the women involved as well as the men.
And no, my wife is not younger than me.
Stuart @ #158.
A blog post from three months ago? Are you for real?
You really know how to parade your ignorance, don’t you?
Actually, I wasn’t, and I didn’t actually say something abusive was going on, although the age difference can create problems. (For one thing, it is a lot more common in show business than even the left, and ponder how many divorces and broken relationships there are in Hollywood.)
There can also be a power imbalance, and people can get hurt in these situations. Even before I became involved in the left, I briefly worked for a company in which one of the directors was openly having an affair with a company secretary over 20 years younger than him, and she was actually pregnant by him. He was married – I think his wife was just putting up with the situation.
Mark Victorystooge,
” That is, middle-aged or even elderly males carrying on relationships with much younger women, ie. 20 or more years younger.”
What makes you think you have the right to judge other people’s personal lives?
Its the mentality of curtain twitchers.
None of your damned business as far as I can see.
A bit unfair; from around the time of the end of the Iran/Iraq war th SWP developed a firmer anti-imperialist position; though they were always vulnerable to being swayed by liberal opinion. It is only since the split with the Counterfire mob that the SWP has started to openly compete with the AWL for the pro-NATO franchise.
In that case, why don’t you leave Martin Smith alone, then?
True, they have got worse recently.
The issue with Smith is not that he had an affair, which is entirely a question for him and his sexual partners; it is not even that he behaved like a fool – we have all done that – and who would cast the first stone about that.
The issue is that there was an imbalance of power being abused, and that when complaints were made to the SWP, they carried out a cack handed investigation and acted as if preserving the reputation of their organisation, and the public reputation of Smith, was more importnat than in challenging the institutional sexism that the case had revealed.
Mark Victorystooge,
“In that case, why don’t you leave Martin Smith alone, then?”
Read all my posts in this thread, I have never once even mentioned his name.
One fascinating aspect of this thread is the way Andy Newman’s bitterness towards his former SWP comrades is quite open and transparent. It has (to his credit, i believe) a transparency of approach that suggests he is being honest and straightforward.
All who have had actual experience of the SWP, if they are equally honest with themselves, will not fail to be reminded of the ‘small group psychosis’ that seems to grip those involved during periods of local ‘issue’ induced tension. i can certainly remember the policing of behaviour by the Party hierarchs – the control commissions and the petty internal class divisions etc that Andy Newman has described.
But most interesting for me is how and why past irritations about political life in a small socialist organisation (with huge objectives) apparently becomes the obvious obsession for retribution that it has?
What is it that so consumes? The SWP are not the central problem of political life for the UK socialists. They are just a part of the much larger problem facing all, ie, how can we grow in size and influence and begin to win the respect of the workers movement without prostitution of principles. Andy Newman’s choice of promoting freemarket Labour offers little or no prospect of really significant societal change. Perhaps you know that Andy, and perhaps this is an underlying reason for the frequent attempts to undermine those socialists who at least use their energies in the establishment some sort of anti capitalist initiative – however flawed and inadequate.
My point was that those who defend Galloway cannot use anti-imperialism as an excuse for supporting him, such was the nature of what he actually said.
I don’t believe that you are taking allegations seriously if your reponse is to suggest ulterior motives. Bringing cases for rape and/or sexual assault is a very difficult thing to do, not least because the experience will have been traumatic and also for fear of being judged negatively. A lack of sensitivity is unlikely to encourage other women to report such alleged offences.
Don’t you think age differences can open the way or to or be a sign of power imbalances that lead to abuse, though?
Re Martin Smith, I am not convinced there was not simply some “power” struggle in the SWP and his real or alleged behaviour in his private life got thrown into the mix, as is often the case in these no-holds-barred fights. There is a whole thread about this because this blog dislikes the SWP (which is fine – so do I – but I dislike it for reasons that have nothing to do with Smith’s personal behaviour).
You commented on a blog thread that is twitching Martin Smith’s curtain somewhat relentlessly, without ever objecting to it as far as I see. Then I express an opinion about human sexuality based to some degree on what I have observed around me, both on the left but also outside it, and you blow your top.
What motivates me to give testimony about my experience is perhaps twofold; i) that SWP members have sought to damage my reputation for years by whispering campaigns of untruths, because I have challenged to power trips and the group think orthodoxies, and my response is to fight back, and only be telling the truth does my retaliation have any credibility; ii) I think that you underestimate the damage to the left that these cultish groups cause, both in the unions, and in filling the space that a genuinely pluralist and board left current could occupy
Are you familiar with the positions taken by the SWP over Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004 and the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon in 2005?
It certainly might do in specific cases; but this is an area where it is dangerous to generalise from the specific, and dangerious to make judgements of individuals.
Age difference may reflect power imbalance, it may not.
Have you read none of this thread relating to the SWP’s own internal culture?
But this is a (hostile) blog.
Why stop at age difference having the potential for abusive power relations? What about height? what about weight? couldn’t they be just as important. What about skin tone?
It all begins to sound like prejudice and judgement based on very little of substance doesn’t it?
Mark Victorystooge,
“You commented on a blog thread that is twitching Martin Smith’s curtain somewhat relentlessly, without ever objecting to it as far as I see”
I made it quite clear that I had no interest in the thread till I was smeared by implication on it by some SWP hack.
You are just as dishonest as said SWP hack with this kind of non-argument.
“Then I express an opinion about human sexuality based to some degree on what I have observed around me, both on the left but also outside it, and you blow your top.”
You will notice that I also ‘blew my top’ at some idiot, who may or may not have been an SWPer (i’m not sure) who expressed the opinion that some other aspects of human sexuality were ‘absolutely disgusting’. But I did not thereby try to associate the SWP with his nasty views, because I was not sure that was fair.
Yet you attempt to associate me with attacks on Martin Smith despite me having made no attacks on Martin Smith.
I could just as easily associate you with ‘Dazed and Confused’ nasty intolerance, since you failed to criticise that.
Particular as you also express your own kind of intolerance, albeit for different things.
So you admit it then? Being working class is no excuse for your awful attitude towards women when I remember you…. just as it is no excuse now. Oh how your response oozes with sterotypes …. muesli eating? What sort of crime is that? Now boorish sexism is wrong. If I remember correctly you never accepted that your behaviour was anything other than normal for “working class blokes” so you continued as before because you aspired to be a “normal working class bloke”…. Perhaps you’ve changed now but I suspect not if you continue to make excuses for your unacceptable behaviour back then. Grow up and face it… you are becoming a bitter and twisted old man.
Not as far as I can see.
Now Comrade, about this Muesli eating….
#191 But Stuart, part of the reason why there is so much suspicion about this case is precisely because of the lengths that are being gone to in contrast with other cases. That’s one of the central points made by Naomi (She’s Not A Real Feminist Because We Say So) Woolf. A view that my (Greenham Common veteran) wife shares.
It’s one of the reasons that you will not convince me or many others that what Galloway said about this case can be read in terms of a general attempt to make light of the crime of rape or that to question a specific allegation of rape somehow means that you are attacking ALL victims (actual or alleged) of rape.
As for your response on the Scotsboro Boys, the reality is that they were either guilty or not guilty. The fact that they were less likely to be acquitted because of the racist system they were subject to did not alter that. And the same works the other way. I am not going to as a GENERAL position accept a SPECIFIC woman’s word that she has been raped, particularly if I am aware of evidence and circumstances that suggest that the allagations are false (or haven’t actually been made) just because generally women find it difficult to report such crimes.
That is not the same thing as believing that generally women who report rape should be treated as sympathetically as possible, both for their sakes and to encourage others to come forward.
@178we supported England in the football
I surprised that you weren’t expelled on the spot!
As somebody from a WC background myself I always found the internal culture in the SWP to be somewhat of a hostile one.
I’ve always thought, too, that there is a debate to be had about “classism” in Left parties; IMO it’s telling how senior people from WC backgrounds like the late Julie Waterson and Martin Smith always found themselves kicked off the CC eventually, compared to the the public school brigade, academics and minor ‘aristos’ like Callinicos, who seem set for life.
So an anonymous person hiding behind a pseudonym accuses me of an an “awful attitude towards women”. Strange that the GMB branch that I am secretary of has three times in the last 4 years won a GMB President’s award for promoting equality, that I have an excellent record of promoting the interests of women activists; and that I have always treated women I have been involved with with repect
My general approach to behaviour towards both women and men is pretty much the same as it has always been, people who know me now can judge whether my behaviour is sexist, and it was pretty much the same back 25 years ago.
My alleged “awful attitide towards women” seems to boil down in your eyes to sometimes enjoying the company of men who talk about football and beer; and the fact that I don’t dismiss working class people as backwards just because they don’t know the middle class word games and social mores of the professional middle classes.
It isn’t a crime, but equally you shouldn’t confuse the lifestyle choices of thoso who shop in Picton Street delacatessants as being nece atsarily socialy progressive. No broad based social movement can be constructed around treating the lifestyle choices of the Guardian reading liberals as normative, and condescendinly looking down at the working classes
What is interesting is that none of your codswallop about my supposed “attitude towards women” actually involves anything I have ever said or done involving women. It is all about having different politics, where I am dismissive of the lifestylism of middle class social-actvists, who are condescending towards the working classes, and use lingusitic codes to mark who is in and out of their exclusive social circles.
My alleged “laddism” involves nothing more than occassionally talking about football and beer, and not wanting to be drawn into the dinner party cicuit of Bristol SWP’s unloveable lovies.
It is interesting that you still think this worthy of special comment, as a deployment of the whatabouterry technique, to distract from real sexism and abuses of women inside the SWP.
stuart,
“I don’t believe that you are taking allegations seriously if your reponse is to suggest ulterior motives. ”
Whatever you ‘believe’ is beside the point. If there is evidence that there may be ulterior motives in a rape or sexual assault claim, then that has to be considered just as much as if evidence of an ulterior motive in any other kind of allegation.
And such evidence does exist, quite a lot of it.
There is a campaign to suppress this evidence, in which the SWP is playing a bit-part. The main actors are three bourgeois states: UK, US, Sweden, and our home-grown liberal media.
And if there is evidence that suggests secret state involvement in an attempt to frame up someone, then anyone who tries to prevent that being publicised is an accomplice in a frame up.
Whats wrong with Museli?
This stuff’s really tasty.
http://www.dorsetcereals.co.uk/things-we-make/muesli/simply-delicious-muesli/
But you see I have admitted that I
This actually IS the “sexism” that “Jim Smith” is referring to
In my expereince of the SWP, if you are leading industrial militant you can rape your underage step daughter, and nothing will be said; but if you enjoy a laugh wth some working class male friends, then you have an “awful attitude to women”
Of course it all depends whether you are seen as “oppositionist” or not.
Sure Andy, I get that, and its pityful.
But sects and cults do major in deference and social control.
It is utterly transparent that you are more concerned about the sort of “sexism” that you allege I have (interest in sport, drinking beer, enjoying the company of working class people who may not know the lingusitic rules of how to conform to the mores of the liberal managerial classes and professionals); than with allegations of sexual abuse, and institutional sexism that has forced women into silence.
I am happy enough with my age; and generally I am not a bitter person, but this bullying hypocrisy from you does make me angry, and it won’t silence me.
I have always been quiet shocked at just how far the SWP would be prepared to ‘bend the stick’ on useful individual’s blatantly reactionary views. I particularly remember an Indian student recruit who very openly defended the caste system. That seemed to be acceptable where as having a ‘workers state ‘view of the Soviet Union would have put him beyond the pale.
you see another interesting thing about “Jim Smith” is that there is no reference by Jim Smith to the case of Pete W, referred to in the substantie articel above.
Pete may have abused, bullied and shouted down women, treated women’s opinions as less valuable than mens, and belittled and infantalised a woman SWP colleague who worked in the same college as him. But Pete W was middle class, and so this was not “sexism”, Pete knew how to kow-tow to the authority figues within the local group, and also knew how to use all the politically correct language, and would read the Observer on Sunday, and could talk about Shopenhauer and evolutionary theory.
Pete W was an accepted member of the in-crowd, and by definition could not be “sexist”, otherwise the groups self image of itself would be unsustainable.
So when women complained about Pete W’s actual sexism, the wagons were circled around him, and it was the women criticised for “factionalising”, and one of them was accused of “hysteria” (apparently, if you support the SWP status quo, you dont even need to remember to avoid sexist language)
Pete W was protected not only for the sake of the SWP’s reputation, but also becuase he was socially conformist within the cult dynamics.
212] ‘That seemed to be acceptable where as having a ‘workers state ‘view of the Soviet Union would have put him beyond the pale’.
Oh you’d be surprised how often I heard Cliff tell potential members with doubts about State Capitalism that it “didn’t matter” and they should join anyway! I remember reading an obituary of the late Cyril Smith in which he recalls that when he left the CP he had discussions with Cliff in which he got this response. He was disgusted by Cliff’s opportunism. So he joined Gerry Healey’s outfit instead – but that’s another story…
Surely the whole point of a cult is to shag the younger naive chicks?
Cyril Smith(1929-2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith_(disambiguation)
“From his [Smith's] early university experiences in 1967 [sic] and [19]48, he recognised that the “official” Communist Party had nothing to offer. …
“He investigated the available Trotskyist options in London diligently, while working with the RCP student organisation. Tony Cliff invited him to join the Socialist Review Group, assuring him that differences between his own theory of state capitalism and Trotsky’s view in “The Revolution Betrayed” were unimportant. Cyril never renewed that contact.”
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/obituary.htm
Is it really necessary to talk about anyone in this way when they are no longer around to defend themselves?
As someone who was a member of the SWP for a long time and left after being on the end of some pretty rough behaviour, I can understand and sympathise when people feel aggrieved. But this, frankly, is beyond the pale. Do you actually have a political point to make? This kind of comment would be better confined to the therapist’s room.
jimmythecat,
It wasn’t me who brought Helen into the discussion, she was produced as evidence against my own character, and therefore I had to contextualise that criticism of me by explaining who she was- how much store should be placed upon her opinion, and the anecdote about the poly was relevant because attempting to relate to working class men interested in boxing was regarded as intrinsically exist by the branch leadership.
I remember that one West Indian man who joined the SWP was told that going to the gym and lifting weights was sexist (it was a gym in st pauls with mainly black working class members- this was before gym membership was de rigeur for the middle classes)
jimmythecat,
I would also remind you that Helen chose to be a professional politician- and her judgement as such has been invoked as evidence of my alleged sexism.
If you chose to be a professional politician you cant complain if you are criticised in hoe you do the job. Sep full full timers make clear they are political leaders not just staff.
And in natural justice once “jim smith” hides behind a pseudonym how else can I put the record straight except by referrimg to the person they named.
i never knew Helen Shooter, nor was i aware of her death until Jimthecat’s post. The obit in Socialist Worker has her as an effective full timer with broad interests and widespread respect.
Andy Newman’s contrasting denigration must be uncomfortable reading for many, and it certainly sits uneasily with me.
i’m sure that you have qualities Andy Newman (tenacity obviously), but your spiteful anti SWP diatribe is quite disgraceful. It goes beyond reasoned criticism that all can learn and benefit from, it begins to resemble something quite disturbed.
Could you not be prevailed upon to limit the stridency and confine your remarks to proper and legitimate critique?
vanya #204, redscribe #207,
I think that central to the SWP position over Assange is that capitalism is unable to deliver genuine justice. In an ‘ideal world’ Assange would have to face his accusers however the bourgeois system is unable to disentangle the interests of US imperialism from the allegations. This is a key point, the response of socialists should nonetheless be one that listens respectfully to the women.
I think redcogs (220) sums it up well, and the comments at 218 and 219 show a complete lack of sensitivity or decorum. I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t understand why this thread has become an attack on Andy Newman when he is not the person who has been forced to resign from a left group because of his bullying and sexist behaviour towards women.
The SWP must have a pretty effective spin machine in operation to make Andy the bad guy and manage yet again to ensure that Martin Smith and his band of apologists are able to play the victim.
I d
redcogs
Ididnt know helen had died, but it would be hypocritical to pretend she was anything but useless in my experience of her as a full timer.
Referring to the SW obituary : Dave selars description of the impact of helens arrival i Bristol might be cosidered less than impartial!
stuart,
“I think that central to the SWP position over Assange is that capitalism is unable to deliver genuine justice. In an ‘ideal world’ Assange would have to face his accusers however the bourgeois system is unable to disentangle the interests of US imperialism from the allegations. This is a key point, the response of socialists should nonetheless be one that listens respectfully to the women.”
Just hypocritical woffle, and an echo of the propaganda of three capitalist governments, in whose camp you are embedded.
He does not have ‘accusers’. He has one accuser who has actually signed any putative allegation, and there is evidence in the public domain that suggests she is very likely to be lying for political motives and has connections with what any socialist should consider to be an organisation of our deadliest enemies.
Why don’t you listen to what Assange is saying with ‘respect’, instead of publishing hypocritical sermons that imply he is guilty even though he has not been charged with a crime?
Disentangling the interests of US imperialism from a CIA frame-up, a neat trick indeed!
sad but true,
Playing the victim is part of the cult mindset. They are under a perceived attack so rally around each other
If Martin Smith has been forced back to the ranks of the ‘ordinary member’ by his sexist behaviour this is evidence that SWP comrades are addressing the issue that Andy Newman is charging them with. There is nothing at all wrong with shining a bright light upon the internal culture of any socialist party (which needs to set itself the highest standards), in fact my guess would be that many SWP comrades would not oppose pressure being brought to bare if it resulted in a more healthy democratic culture than they apparently still have.
Plenty people who contribute here seem to have been victim of the absence of any thorough going accountability within that Party, and can identify with many of the issues that are raised by Andy Newman. But you don’t need to be the victim of an SWP “spin machine” to recognise uncomradely misjudgement when you read it.
All this is very sad I think.
I am nearly 60 years old now and I am a former member of the SWP (1976-82 mainly) and I feel that my generation, and the generation that proceeded me (the initiators of the “New Left”) have been defeated. And the character of organisations like the SWP today (but not just the SWP) with all these lurid sort of stories really bring home to me the scale of that defeat.
I actually don’t doubt the veracity of many of the stories about the SWP in this thread – in fact, I know some of them to be true from my own experience, but I am not actually very surprised or even, these days anyway, particularly outraged by them anymore (I do wish that the names of comrades no longer with us had been left out of the discussion though). I am more inclined to think now – what else could be expected of a tiny decining organisation like the SWP, continually buffeted by very powerful social forces, who are comprised of human beings who are the “socialised products” of a system that they wish to overthrow? I mean to say, what actually can be more contradictory than being a revolutionary socialist living in capitalist society? (apart from eating pork scratchings at a gathering of Bristolian muesli-bashers! lol)
When I think back to the 1970s when the left was much stronger and there was greater optimism among comrades about what we might be able to achieve, there were still some dreadful things going on at a personal level between some of us. There is no way that I would wish to gloss over some of the issues that we had to deal with then. Even so I now tend to feel – well, what can be expected today given that our movement has been in headlong retreat for a quarter of a century and our organisations have become so bureaucratised and undemocratic?
In the 1970s the SWP at least had the politics of Women’s Voice (which was a positive response, in my view, to the activism of the women’s movement) which insisted that “the personal was political” – and I think it did help very much to raise consciousness within the party (and outside to a limited extent) about the questions of power in all sorts of relationships between men and women, both inside and outside of the worker’s movement. That’s not to say that bad things didn’t happen then, or that we got everything right, but I think it is fair to say that problems were more likely to be dealt with politically in a much more transparent way than is very often the case today.
Of course, the SWP leadership (Cliff) destroyed Women’s Voice in the early 1980s and after the defeat of the Great Miner’s srike of 1984-5 the bureaucratisation of the SWP accelerated sharply. It has been downhill ever since really, certainly for the SWP, but also for most organisations on the left who were, of course, subject to the same social pressures and defeats as the SWP.
I cannot be involved in socialist organisations anymore – I actually regard the main ones that organise near me in south London as equally “toxic” really. And I don’t see what they can hope to teach the next generation of working class activists either. I wouldn’t say to anyone now, “join so-and-so and see how you get on”. I just see them as organisations to be avoided at all costs.
So I am not actually sure what the answer is now. I am still active as a public sector shop steward and I try to involve people in the activity of our branch. But beyond that I have nothing to say right now. Occupy and the other anti-corporate campaigners can raise the spirits, the occasional anti-fascist mobilisation can still give me a lift too. But that is not enough. Yet to continue trying to build a revolutionary current within the working class movement (and that still is the priority as far as I am concerned) when the main socialist organisations seem to be so deranged and dysfunctional is beyond me, I’m afraid to say.
@redcogs
Martin Smith was not “forced back to the ranks of an ordinary member”, I was at the SWP conference 2 years ago where he spun a story about wanting to return to work in the industrial department, that resigning as National Secretary was in no way a demotion etc etc.
There was no indication from the Central Committee whatsoever that he was guilty of harassing young women who had dumped him, and infact he then received the infamous standing ovation complete with cheering and foot stamping which so shocked a number of people there.
The SWP had no intention of addressing Martin Smith’s behaviour at that time and infact went out of their way to discredit the young woman who had made the initial complaint.
There have now been further complaints made against him, and this time their leadership have been forced to do something about it, under the guise of addressing sexism in the party.
They are not doing this willingly or with clean hands, because they were all part of the initial attempt to stop any discussion around the issue.
Sexist,
Ah now I understand, they fulfill the role of the Young Farmers in an urban environment.
redscribe,
If I am condemning capitalist governments how am I echoing their propaganda? And where have I said that I don’t want to listen to Assange?
andy newman,
I must say, that the adage about ‘not speaking ill of the dead’ is irrational and when introduced into politics, downright weird.
Everyone, good, bad or indifferent, will eventually end up dead. If you cannot be critical of people who are deceased, you will never learn anything at all from history.
stuart,
I never noticed any criticism of the propaganda line that to cite evidence that suggests CIA involvement in framing Assange is to denigrate his accuser (which implies his guilt and her innocence).
This was reiterated in #192
If you don’t repudiate that bottom line, any criticism you make of the governments involved is as toothless as Nick Clegg’s ‘criticisms’ of David Cameron.
redscribe,
Even more weird when they seek to invoke the judgement of the dead about the living and then criticise the living for defending their own reputation
stockwellpete,
The game is up mate, not only was a revolution never going o happen in Britain, but globalisation and multinational corporations mean the whole socialist project needs to be re assessed. The experience of the actually existing socialist countries has also been sobering, thoug far from all negative.
And not only for the shagging opportunities but also for the chance to lord it over those of the labouring class who were inquisitive enough to wander into a meeting.
Courage mon brave.
What is defeat? Nothing but education; nothing but the first step to something better.
“What though the field be lost?
All is not lost; the unconquerable Will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?
That Glory never shall his wrath or might
Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace
With suppliant knee, and deifie his power,
Who from the terrour of this Arm so late
Doubted his Empire, that were low indeed,
That were an ignominy and shame beneath
This downfall; since by Fate the strength of Gods
And this Empyreal substance cannot fail,
Since through experience of this great event
In Arms not worse, in foresight much advanc’t,
We may with more successful hope resolve
To wage by force or guile eternal Warr
Irreconcileable, to our grand Foe,
Who now triumphs, and in th’ excess of joy
Sole reigning holds the Tyranny of Heav’n.”
As people in this site know well, I don’t count myself as part of the Left, nevertheless ..
To bow and sue for grace
With suppliant knee, and deifie his power,
Who from the terrour of this Arm so late
Doubted his Empire, that were low indeed,
That were an ignominy and shame beneath
This downfall;
#236 It is not so much that I expected a revolution to happen in Britain in my lifetime (I actually regard capitalism as a relatively new stage of human development; in more general historical terms, I mean), but I did expect to have contributed to the building of a much stronger worker’s movement both here and abroad, at least (I will probably be denounced as a Menshevik for this attitude! lol). Instead, the revolutionaries have gone backwards and we are virtually back at square one now.
In five years time a number of us will be celebrating the centenary of the October revolution. My rather forlorn hope is that at least some of the new activists will gain some political inspiration from those events. I say “forlorn” because it is likely that those who are inclined to do so will do it through the auspices of socialist organisations that have failed miserably to build the revolutionary movement in the last twenty-five years or so.
Well this has been fun. What should we discuss next? The SWP’s finances? The inner circle who hold the real money? What happened to Dave Hayes and his unusual pension. The American insurance payout and the real reason for falling out with the ISO? Whatever happened to the International fund? How full timers got council flats in London. Milking the accounts of front organisations for vanity travel.
And so much more.
We wil have a lot of fun with that, especially as thousands of people over the years have made sacrifices to put money into this unacountable fund
redscribe,
My analysis is this. Just because capitalism will want to turn the women into tools of imperialism, we as socialists should not automatically cast them in that role just because they allege rape and/or sexual assault.
stockwellpete – just for you:
“When you get into a tight place, and everything goes against you till it seems as if you could n’t hold on a minute longer, never give up then, for that ‘s just the place and time that the tide ‘ll turn.”
Harriet Elizabeth Beecher Stowe (14 June 1811 – 1 July 1896) was an American abolitionist and writer, most famous as the author of the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
stockwellpete and here is another quote to inspire you:
“Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world.”
~Jane Addams~
Jane Addams was a pioneer settlement worker, founder of Hull House in Chicago, public philosopher, sociologist, author, and leader in woman suffrage and world peace.
Neil, I haven’t given up – it is just that I am not prepared to participate any longer in “abusive relationships” with those organisations that present themselves as the revolutionary left in the UK today. As I have said, I will be celebrating October 1917 when the time comes.
#242 But that’s not the reason that some people have doubted the reliability or motives of one of the two women involved in the allegations against Assange is it? You’ve got that the wrong way around.
I wonder what they would have said a few years later if one of their branch members had said they like Oasis.
‘I wonder what they would have said a few years later if one of their branch members had said they like Oasis’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Sweet_to_Be_an_Idiot
Andy Newman said:
Well this has been fun. What should we discuss next? The SWP’s finances? The inner circle who hold the real money? What happened to Dave Hayes and his unusual pension. The American insurance payout and the real reason for falling out with the ISO? Whatever happened to the International fund? How full timers got council flats in London. Milking the accounts of front organisations for vanity travel.
And so much more.
We wil have a lot of fun with that, especially as thousands of people over the years have made sacrifices to put money into this unacountable fund
———————————————————————————
Can you run a poll on this site ? lol
No Stuart, allegations of “rape” come from the CIA, not from anyone who has actually claimed to have had sex with Assange.
The one person who actually claims to have had the sexual encounter with Assange says in her statement that this was “consensual” and further states in the same statement that she does not want the involvement of the police crime unit.
It is the CIA who have tried to manufacture a “rape” allegation from this, there is no “rape allegation” from the woman.
You and others who describe this as a “rape allegation” are siding with the CIA over this, you are not siding with this woman.
Your argument is, in essence, that when this woman said the sex was “consensual” that you think she means the opposite. You are interptreting this woman’s stated view and claiming that she doesn’t in fact actually know her own mind.
You are in fact saying that you know her mind and her intentions better than she does.
You are actively supporting the CIA here, and actively contradicting what this woman has actually said and her actual, stated version of events.
Stuart, the difference between your response to this issue and Galloway’s response is that he has based his view on looking at what this woman has actually stated, whereas you have ignored what she has actually stated and instead, you have taken the CIA’s line.
That is because the project of the soi disant “revolutionaries” was never a viable one.
It was not viable at so many different levels, ,and the pressure of its impossiblity has levied a heavy toll on its Quixotic advocates, who have exuded a cultish carapace to shut reality out from their close dim corner:
Firstly, the capitalist economic system has enough rude vigour to continue to grow, and to expand the number of people having a good standard of living
Secondly, the ideological and political underpinings of capitalism are far too strong to be undermined by shrill marginal voices
Thirdly, the “revolutionary” project was predicated upon a form of class consciousness that was increasingly divorced from the expereince of millions of working people; for the reasons ably explained by Eric Hobsbawm.
Fourthly, changes to the structure of capitalism and society – globalisation, the rise of the multi-national corporation, etc – and the increasingly high technological threshold to compete internaionally mean that the socialist project as originally conceived by the pioneers is itself arguably obsolete.
Furthermore, the “leninist” model adopted by the left groups, stressing ideological
homogenity, and polemic, was a rich culture for cult dynamics to develop; and the enormously long time that the left groups have existed means that they have ossified with their own bizarre rituals and routines – making their transformation into cults inevitable.
stuart,
“Just because capitalism will want to turn the women into tools of imperialism, we as socialists should not automatically cast them in that role just because they allege rape and/or sexual assault.”
Ye gods, this is a thin broth now. There is at least strong circumstantial evidence that one of them, on the balance of probabilities, is an agent of US imperialism, and may be complicit (through a friend in the Swedish police) in trying to coerce the other to accuse Assange when she did not want to – apparently unsucessfully since to this day she has not signed the statement imputed to her.
Its absolutely pathetic to suggest by the use of generalised language (“we as socialists should not automatically cast them in that role just because they allege rape and/or sexual assault”) that we are talking in general terms about people who allege any such crimes. We are talking about a specific case.
#252 Well, the project of soi-disant revolutionaries was/is just as viable as the project of the soi disant “reformists” who traditionally have sought a socialist transformation through a bourgeois Parliament! The revolutionary movement has ended up with dysfunctional organisations like the SWP, the reformists have ended up with New Labour. Neither tendency has anything to feel smug about, I feel.
I agree that capitalism is still historically progressive in terms of its productive potential – that is why I said earlier that I saw it as a relatively new stage of human development. However, even its current “globalised” state, it is a crisis prone system and socialist voices, shrill or otherwise, will continue to have opportunities to make the case for an alternative system and to build their organisations if they organise in a sensible and democratic fashion.
As for the “leninist model” – it would be nice if someone actually tried to use it again! The SWP are not Leninists, that’s for sure. Leninism is a thoroughly democratic political tradition whereas the SWP are an undemocratic bureaucratic centralist organisation. I often describe them as “Zinovieist”, mainly because it confuses the hell out of everyone! lol
vanya/karl/redscribe,
In an ideal situation the claims of the women should be heard respectfully rather than in this case their being subjected to a trial by internet. As the SW piece linked above indicates, the bourgeois justice system cannot achieve that (the US interest cannot be separated out). I think the SWP are correct to make a crtique of the system a central point in their argument.
Dazed and Confused surely you should tell everyone on this blog that Dorset cereals is the posh organic stuff that can be purchased from Waitrose. Whats wrong with weetabix?
stuart,
“In an ideal situation the claims of the women should be heard respectfully rather than in this case their being subjected to a trial by internet.”
What claims of what ‘women’? We are talking about one person.
How can there be a ‘regular’ procedure when the deliberate leaking of the details to the tabloid press by the state made it very clear from the beginning what was involved.
In an idea world the CIA would not exist. In an ideal world political dissidents would not be targetted for frame-ups. We dont live in an ideal world. We live in a world where imperialism exists and has to be opposed when it tries to use these means to destroy opponents, just as much as when it uses other more ‘conventional’ means like murder (also threatened against Assange by the way).
True class warriors consume thick porridge, prepared only with water and a little salt – maybe sugar to taste and milk to aid the swallow.
Muesli was ever a boojwah deviation eaten by effete southerners.
256 JG:”Whats wrong with weetabix?”
Too much sugar, that’s what. It’s a mistake to start the day with a sugar shot – you’d just be feeding the addiction from the word go. See:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Skinny-Bastard-Rory-Freedman/dp/0762435402/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355217432&sr=1-7
Southern = anywhere below Sheffield.
@ 258 redcogs
Salt is a no-no. As is milk. Oats and water is the way to go.
(see ref at 259)
I buy Sainsbury’s own brand ‘basics’ muesli at £1.18 a pop. Lower sugar content compared to most of the brand names and tastes good too. With some natural yogurt on top and your skimmed milk, you’re talking the breakfast of champions.
I’ve just done 50 press ups and been out for a run.
Maybe that’s a symptom of bourgeois individualism. In fact, I’ve just decided that any socialist who lives past 50 is a fucking sell out.
This is ultra leftism of the worse kind Uncle Albert.
i award you a control commission and a period of self criticism.
Salt is essential in all diets (but not to excess naturally).
You may have done the 50 press ups John, but my guess is that there will be no proper hills to run up in your part of the world. Muesli couldna get you up the Cairngorms.
redscribe,
But we are not just anti-imperialists we are socialists as well. Your approach denies the women the right to set out their own case against their accuser, for that reason is it inferior to the approach articulated in SW. Capitalism is a total system. Women suffer as well as the many who suffer as a result of US imperialism. Socialists should tackle the subject in such a way as to uphold the rights of women AND of the many victims of imperialism.
#241/247 I’m game Andy if you are. If you know the answer to some or all of these questions I think you should start. But you raise rather a lot of points and would probably wouldn’t have time to do them all. I rather like Howard’s suggestion that we vote to see which one to start with but perhaps it would help to list them some way in order of importance? My vote is Dave Hayes and the funny pension. I once saw Dave Hayes savagely abuse a long standing comrade for having the wrong line on some matter of NUT politics, a line ironically which was then adopted in its entirety some years later. By this stage I had left the SWP and therefore doubly ironically agreed with comrade Hayes if only because i didn’t want to be in the same group as the SWP??!! Anywa I am still struck by how rude and unpleasant the man was, buut often wonder what happened to him.
Listen, I’ll give ye a Colly Bucky up the Cairngorms. You should see me going round Arthur’s Seat. I did it twice on Saturday morning and only coughed up one lung afterwards
Trying telling that to people who come from Stoke!
#258 I thin k this whole cereal thing is a deviation – well isn’t it?
Well that rules out most of the CC’s/leadership thingies of most socialist organisations, especially the ones who are university lecturers and therefore by implication eat sugar and salt free organic cereal from Waitrose.
You’re right. Porridge is the only breakfast for a socialist worth his or her salt. I like mine lumpy and washed down with black coffee.
isn’t Dave Hayes running a boot camp for recalcitrants, assisted by Andy Struthers and Chris Bambery.
stuart,
If there is evidence that the only accuser is likely an asset of an imperialist agency, why should her ‘accusations’ be privileged over the rights of the accused? If there is evidence that the other putative accuser never signed her statement and it may be the work of a cop, why should such material be privileged over the rights of the accused?
What has this to do with women’s rights? This is suppressing evidence of nefarious state activities and the rights of the accused. In reality this gives privileges to imperialist agencies.
Pete
‘As for the “leninist model” – it would be nice if someone actually tried to use it again! The SWP are not Leninists, that’s for sure. Leninism is a thoroughly democratic political tradition whereas the SWP are an undemocratic bureaucratic centralist organisation. I often describe them as “Zinovieist”, mainly because it confuses the hell out of everyone! Lol’
Well I like your humour Pete – and let’s face it, wherever you’re coming from, there aint too much of it above – and self-depreciation: good to see you back on SU!
But surely you can’t be serious about Leninism being a ‘thoroughly democratic political tradition’. Lenin’s attitude to democracy was, at best, pragmatic. Democratic centralism is especially prone to dictatorship given the enormous concentration of centralised power. Yes, democracy doesn’t simply hinge on formal political models, and I’m well aware of other forms of governance going to the bad (contemporary Egypt being only one example), but I can’t think of an instance of democratic centralism not degenerating into only a semblance of democracy.
As for the SWP, as wiser heads have argued above, the rot set in the late 1980s – though even before that I can remember that a pre-conference regional discussion forum consisted of a harangue from a CC member (say Julie Waterson or Sheila MacGregor) in which any identified deviation or perceived weakness in a comrade would be rounded upon (needless to say at the actual conference every vote would be duly be unanimous, whilst latitude would be given to Paul Foot’s half humorous calls to sack the half the CC because he was Paul Foot). Whatever other questions the revolutions of 1989 threw up, they raised the issue of socialist organisation. However, far from that being a valid question for ‘the party’, the SWP was so intoxicated by the apparent validation of the state capitalism thesis that it assumed gave it pre-eminence on the left, that there was an accentuation of the authoritarianism (both formally and in terms of mind set) that had already set in – and I would argue, it inherent in democratic centralism. The end product was that political arguments with many, not all, party members became both bizarre and unpleasant, an experience not to be repeated if possible. Needless to say the tendency to alienate and repel people in movements and struggles – always and inevitably there to some degree, though not during the miners’ strike – increased.
Fast forward 20 odd years and c.15 years since the political impact of the web, and there is still no space within the organisation formally granted for genuine discussion. Socialist Worker must be the only paper I can think of that doesn’t have some sort of forum for debate. Occasionally I caste my eye over the letters page (worthy of Pravda) with a sense of disbelief.
So I suspect that the sexism in the SWP that exercises Andy – I’m not in a position to know the truth of it, it does sound credible – can be linked to the closed, secretive, ‘the CC are the CC and are necessarily always right and must be supported’ mentality that is integral to democratic centralism. There, of course, a lot more to it than that, and it might seem a bit much to blame Vladimir Ilyich Lenin for the sexual politics of Martin Smith, but I’d argue that there is a connection between democratic centralism and the degeneration of the SWP as a serious political force on the left.
As for socialist parties, the indignados, Occupy movement etc have possibly swung too far away from formal organisation – though they did pick up 3 seats in Catalonia the other day – but I suspect that they are closer to the mark with 21st century socialism than the SWP. And I suspect, on the basis of no first-hand knowledge whatsoever, that the young people within them have more and better sex than people in the SWP!
#267 What’s a Colly Bucky? Is it like a wee Bucky? In which case I suggest it’s not a good idea at breakfast. And would recommend you read the disclaimer on the label regarding the use of the word ‘tonic’
Northern – everywhere from Oxford upwards
On the culture of cults prevalent on the far left, I too have personal experience of this. I recall attending a branch meeting of the Workers World Party in LA on the National Question as it relates to blacks in the US. Their line is that blacks in the US constitute a national minority with the right to self determination. I dared question this position and will never forget the steely silence that descended in the room.
The next day I received a call from one of the main organisers in the branch and was called to a meeting. There I was informed that the organising committee had decided my full membership was to be changed to candidate membership status until I’d undergone a six month period of education and probation.
I walked out of the office in East LA feeling as if my world had just ended. The branch btw consisted of around a dozen regular members. The entire experience looking back was absolutely absurd, consisting of grown men and women acting as if they alone held the keys to enlightenment and moral and intellectual purity.
Being in the grip of a cult mentality is no joke.
redscribe,
But you are effectively asking for privileges for the accused because he has undermined US imperialism. My argument is that Assange may (or may not) have committed a sexual crime against women but is avoiding facing his accusers because the bourgeois system is too enmeshed with US imperialism.
stuart,
“But you are effectively asking for privileges for the accused because he has undermined US imperialism.”
Not at all. I am demanding that concrete evidence (which exists) that he is being framed with these allegations be given equal status to the evidence (such as it is) for the allegations themselves. The fact that they undermine the allegations is a fact inherent in the situation. You want this part of the relevant evidence suppressed.
Andy Newman,
Any student of such matters will need to get a handle on where the central point of the UK is. Although there is debate, its clear to me that the centre of the UK is Dunsop Bridge (Lancs BB7). By definition all points below Dunsop must be in the south.
It is therefore nonsense to suggest that “everywhere above Oxford” is in the north. You are an effete southerner, and should harbour a sense of shame.
Psychologically, this explains much.
#274 “But surely you can’t be serious about Leninism being a ‘thoroughly democratic political tradition’. Lenin’s attitude to democracy was, at best, pragmatic.Democratic centralism is especially prone to dictatorship given the enormous concentration of centralised power.”
Well, it depends on the balance between democracy and centralism in any given organisation, Sam. Any organisation with a national conference that elects the leadership can be described as democratic centralist in my book – so, for me, the Tory Party is democratic centralist, so is the Labour Party. And so was the SWP back in the 1970s when it first started. Democratic centralism is just a form of organisation that enables members to contribute to the formation of policy and then to make sure that it gets carried out.
But even back in the day I remember discussions we had about making the SWP more democratic. A lot of us used to think that the national conference should elect the CC, the National Committee and the Party Council but that the Party Council (comprised of branch activists, not party full-timers) should meet quarterly and it should have the power to overrule the other two bodies if necessary. So, in that way, you were building counterweights and democratic safeguards into the organisation. None of this was a magic prescription to prevent bureaucratisation and routinism which can happen to any organisation when the working class movement is retreating and recruitment is slow.
The best book I have read on this subject is Marcel Liebman’s “Leninism under Lenin”; Deutscher’s books on Trotsky are also very good as is John Molyneux’s “Marxism and the Party”, which the SWP was still selling in the 1980s (always amazed me this did because their practice seemed to be the very opposite to what Molyneux was suggesting).
You might say Lenin’s attitude to democracy was “pragmatic” – I wouldn’t put it like that at all. When he first came onto the political scene the socialist organisations were heavily infiltrated by the Tsarist police so he advocated a strict centralist regime for the party. Under the influence of the 1905 revolution, when the working class began to participate in the political process he shifted and argued for the utmost democracy on the left. Pragmatic? Or just a sensible response to changed political circumstances?
Similarly, during the revolutionary period 1917-24, Lenin was again committed to maintaining as much democracy as was possible even though the Soviets were hollowed out (some organisations represented there joined the counter-revolutionary White armies) and the urban working class was atomised – in 1918 Lenin had recognised that the link between party and class was very badly damaged and he began to use the term dictatorship “for” the the proletariat rather than “of” the proletariat. But you cannot honestly point the finger at Lenin and say he had an ambivalent attitude to democracy at that time, that somehow his commitment to democracy was deficient – no, the regime was under siege, the society was collapsing, people were starving in the cities and so a participatory working class democracy was impossible in those circumstances. And at the end of the civil war period the most coherent force in Russian society was the state administration (bureaucracy) and that was where Stalin had located himself (and so had Zinoviev! lol).
But the mean location furthest from the sea is somewhere around Witney in Oxfordshire, which by that definition is the geometric centre of the UK.
Indeed, that may be the case, which is why we need some circumspection about what social change is actualy possible.
I recall how, in the 1970s, during a flirtation with Militant, one acolyte reported how Ted Grant had claimed eating bananas was good for cognitive performance. I was surprised how popular bananas subsequently became in the local branch.
Grant may have been right – perhaps Grant and his followers just didn’t eat enough of them.
redscribe,
If there is concrete evidence of framing I wouldn’t want it suppressed. Are Assange’s lawyers not arguing that line? I still think that ideally the women should be given the opportunity to put their own case but again I reiterate, the system is not effectively facilitating this.
Andy Newman,
Re 282. According to the good people at Ordnance Survey, the place that gets the dubious title of “The further most point from the sea in the British Isles” is at grid reference SK 257144.
This lies just east of Church Flatts Farm, approximately 1 mile south-east of Coton in the Elms, Derbyshire.
Derbyshire you will note is not Oxford, or indeed anywhere near to Oxford. Your grasp of geography is as shakey as your general political stance.
“The further most point from the sea in the British Isles” is at grid reference SK 257144.
Yes, but is that the further most point from the sea in England?
Andy Newman,
When I think back to some of the “training” I received from the SWP in the 1970s I can remember great emphasis being put on the difference between “Reform or Revolution” at some of the sessions. The SWP were right-on revolutionaries while the Labour Party members we would meet were snivelling reformist sell-outs (apart from when the NF turned up! lol) It all seemed to make sense then, but I don’t regard it as particularly helpful now. I feel it makes much more sense to recognise that revolutionary socialists should try to be the best fighters for reform – while recognising that our ultimate task is to turn the struggle for reforms into the struggle to end this system once and for all.
I’m not denying that some the complaints described above might be valid.
But I’m in no position to judge and I strongly disapprove of spreading personal innuendo as a method of engaging in a political dispute.
I’ll give you an example of why this is so dangerous:-
Some years ago, I attended an SWP public meeting addressed by a leading member of the organisation (now deceased).
I didn’t contribute to the discussion.
During the break, I was approached by a woman I’d never met before.
She proceeded to tell me that he’d been “coming on to her” after meetings.
I was rather suspicious of her motives.
Why was she telling me?
Did she assume I was a member?
Was this a whispering campaign directed at people on the periphery?
Perhaps she knew I had criticisms of the SWP?
It wouldn’t be hard for the state to run a whispering campaign based on the exaggeration of observed personal weaknesses.
I therefore remained politely atttentive, but doubtful.
As to the “abuse of power” argument:-
The full time leadership of the SWP has very little social or economic power.
It has access to a mini-media empire, which might attract the odd aspiring radical journalist looking for a pathway to the “Guardian”
It can also employ people in rather low-paid and usually temporary jobs.
Not exactly a “career” path, even for the fulltimers of longstanding within the organisation, who frequently lose their positions after faction fights.
For most people, being part of the SWP apparatus is more likely to get you blacklisted.
It’s the ones who rat on their past who are more likely to get the privileges.
Why have so many scandals been directed at prominent leaders of the socialist left, when the state and mass parties can dispense far greater privileges;
high paid jobs, access to seats, council spending, contracts etc…
Is it just because the left has a superior sense of morality, or are the motives much more suspect?
When it comes to the “fuck circuit” wasn’t John Major’s extra-marital affair with Edwina Currie somewhat questionable?
Or was she just after him for his rugged good-looks and bad-boy image?
This is disingenuous, because it assumes that the SWP is a political organisation whose prime purpose is to see (in anything but a nominal sense) to exercise power or influence in the outside world. In fact the power enjoyed is only good currency within the shared small-group mentality inside the cult; where the authority of the leaders is reinforced by strong policing of social conformity.
For example, back in Bristol in the period we were discussing earlier, when the poll tax emerged as an issue, none of the “branch leadership” were practically involved at all, they didn’t even attend anti-poll tax union meetings happening in their own street. They were too busy “leading” the SWP branch, to be engaged with the outside world – and a great deal of effort was put into marginalising within the SWP those of us who were active in the poll tax campaign.
I remember a paticularly fatuous put down by the aforementioned fulltimer of sWP members from Swindon (before I lived here), when they raised the question of how the SWP’s change of line had never been explicitly acknowleged in SW, and this was causing problems for those actually involved in the campaign alongside other people, she said that they should spend more time reading the paper, and less time talking to people outside the SWP.
When judged as a cult, then the SWP – in common with the other left groups – can provide an illusion of power, vaidation and influence within the group, whether or not that translates to anything meaningful in the outside world.
Absolute rot – being part of the SWP apparatus almost by definition in the last 30 years means that you are not active as a trade unionist in any way likely to bother the bosses
Yes, but these broad social forces do not have cult dynamics.
stuart,
“If there is concrete evidence of framing I wouldn’t want it suppressed. Are Assange’s lawyers not arguing that line? I still think that ideally the women should be given the opportunity to put their own case but again I reiterate, the system is not effectively facilitating this. Are Assange’s lawyers not arguing that line? ”
Are you aware that in the EAW process, nothing can be challenged in terms of evidence: the only thing that can be argued over is whether or not what is alleged fits an actual charge that might be brought?
I.e esto arguments, as explained in a an earlier thread.
As a result of that, mendacious arguments have already been put forward to the extent that Assange’s lawyers had ‘admitted’ the case.
No challenge along those lines is allowed.
Why are the SWP not demanding the same basic demands for Assange as it did for those facing extradition under the US treaty.
I.e. the right to challenge the ‘evidence’, to dispute whether or not a prima facie case exists?
That would cover all of these matters, and more besides.
The left had no trouble demanding similar things for those facing extradition for ‘terrorism’ and other things to the USA.
Why the refusal to demand similar rights for Assange?
#285 But if you propose in principle and in general the idea that doubting specific people who make specific claims of rape is adding to the culture whereby victims are disbelieved and fail to come forward, then by definition you are arguing that such evidence should be suppressed.
And it’s no good saying that it’s a matter for the courts and not public discussion if the identity of someone accused of rape and the alleged circumstances are already public knowledge.
It’s an attempt to limit the ability of the accused to fight a campaign in his defence, which sits a little uneasily to say the least with your view that the nature of the bourgeois legal system makes justice unlikely.
#290 ‘…being part of the SWP apparatus almost by definition in the last 30 years means that you are not active as a trade unionist in any way likely to bother the bosses.’
I was going to disagree with you there Andy, thinking of a number of SWP members victimised in the course of their trade union activity but then it occurred to me that you probably couldn’t say that they were part of the apparatus. I was thinking primarily of a GMPTU convenor in Salford in the early ’90s and a senior UNISON rep in North Manchester far more recently.
Both are very well known and long standing SWP members.
That is the distinction.
Generally, SWP members with substantial roots in the wider labour movement or social campaigns are regarded with suspicion by the institutional players.
redscribe,
The SWP are utterly opposed to Assange’s extradition to the USA.
Vanya,
Just as the women should be listened to sensitively the accused should be entitled to present his defence. This is really about how socialists should frame their response to the case, it is not about wanting to erode the rights of people accused of crimes.
stuart,
“The SWP are utterly opposed to Assange’s extradition to the USA.”
I think so many people in the UK would agree on that that this is unlikely to happen, except through a subterfuge, via Sweden.
But that was not what I asked.
Should he have the right to challenge whether or not there is a prima facie case for extradition to Sweden, on the same basis as that the progressive left supported for extradition cases to the USA?
That would be sufficient to spike any frame up.
Of course, if there were a demonstrable prima facie case, i.e. real evidence of possible guilt, there could be no objection to extradition.
Having attended both Scottish Young Farmer dances and IS meetings in my early years I fully agree. The disdain towards the pleb runs through both organisations. The great thing I remember about the IS meeting was the guy giving the spiel was dressed like a navvy. Cement and mud on his boots, yet not one tiny scuff on those toe-tector’s leather.
Pete 281
‘Democratic centralism is just a form of organisation that enables members to contribute to the formation of policy and then to make sure that it gets carried out’.
Well that’s a very broad remit for a party model Pete but not one I remember realised in the SWP – and not one I think exists in either the Tory and Labour parties but that’s a different matter. In so far as democratic centralism was discussed in the SWP, it tended to couched in a slightly romanticised view of pre-revolutionary Russia (if ever a historical society was not to romanticised) or reduced to cliches: ‘maximum participation in discussion, maximum unity in implementation’ or something close to that being a favourite. The rational as I understood it, was that such were demands of working class leadership in a rapidly changing class struggle, quick decision making was required from the central committee that couldn’t wait for formal democratic endorsement. However, both the annual conference and party councils set the general direction and party priorities. Moreover, the national committee that met every month fed through to the CC the mood of the class as conveyed through the party branches. So supposedly there was a sort of organic democratic cohesiveness to the party. For the most part, in fact nearly the whole part, this was a charade, see above on ‘democracy’ as it transpired. I don’t doubt that things have got worse not better in the SWP over the years, the stifling of even a semblance of free speech seems symptomatic.
Over the years, I’ve come to see that much more definite and prescribed safeguards are needed to preserve democracy and free speech – not that I have any illusions whatsoever about what might be termed ‘bourgeois democracy ‘ as it manifests itself in any facet of capitalist society. My point was that such a formal concentration of power through the model of democratic centralism has within it – and I do genuinely hate this term – an inherent ‘democratic deficit’; at the very least it lends itself to abuse.
As for Lenin, I suppose you’d have to distinguish between:
• His approach to left (as in of the left, not necessarily more left wing) opposition outside and within the Bolsheviks before the October revolution – and if you think the invective on SU is bad, try looking at his abuse directed at Trotsky pre 1917 when supposedly discussing things like the national question!
• His attitude to left (i.e. non Czarist ) opposition – the Mensheviks, the SRs and within the party – after 1917.
• His approach to the democratic intuitions of the February revolution – the constituent assembly etc.
• His attitude to the soviets as centres of potential opposition.
• And his attitude towards opposition from non-Russian nationalities amongst the republics.
I’m not sure how highly he’d score exactly, I’d think about highly enough to warrant the claim that Lenin had a ‘pragmatic’ approach to democracy. I am, of course, aware of the civil war, famine, industrial destruction etc after the revolution.
One thing I would say , is that the allegation that he was the precursor of Stalin isn’t justified. The story of his final struggle against Stalin over the treatment of the national republics hardly features in even the best of the direct line accounts: Orlando Figes A People’s Tragedy, never mind those of a wanker like Robert Service.
#297 Utterly abstract.
In the specific case, many people have put forward what they believe to be specific evidence that the man is the subject of a fit-up and that one of the alleged victims may be complicit in that. How do you suggest sensitivity should manifest itself other than by holding back on presenting that as part of his case?
Generally I agree that when the relevant authorities are presented with an allegation of sexual assault the victim should be treated with respect and sensitivity and that the lack of such has been an ongoing problem for years, both with regard to victims’ personal ordeals and the general reluctance of victims to come forward. I personally have assisted rape victims in complaints against police officers who have failed to respond appropriately and given advice on ways in which this can be improved following that.
But that should not mean that where the matter is in the public domain and there is evidence that the complainant may be implicated in a bogus allegation that anyone should feel constrained against saying so.
redscribe,
The SW link (see post 154) opposes Assange being taken to Sweden on the grounds that they cannot guarantee against extradition to the US. That is the point I’ve been making about the limitations of the bourgeois justice system.
#300 The problem with the argument that Lenin towards the end tried to struggle against Stalin and/ or the bureacratic set-up that Stalin increasingly controlled and that this shows he bore no responsibility for Stalinism is that to me it’s like saying that because Frankenstein turned on his monster he had no responsibility for creating it.
@300I don’t doubt that things have got worse not better in the SWP over the years, the stifling of even a semblance of free speech seems symptomatic.
The “elephant in the sitting room” in all of this is their anachronistic attachment to “Vanguardism” which flows directly from their belief that a Bolshevik-style revolution could occur in Britain in the 21st Century.
From this central fallacy everything else flows and it distorts and skews everything, both internally and in their relationship to outside movements.
The SWP have been most effective in this short-lived periods of relative sanity when they have mobilised around realistic reformist demands and united, however briefly, with others.
So this whole saga has it’s origins in a packet of pork scratchings.
#303 Yes I’d agree. If I implied that he had no responsibility, then I didn’t mean to.
My point was, in a contribution critical of Lenin, was that he clearly realised just what he’d created – or at least allowed others, not least Stalin as party sec, to create. ‘Merely painting the old Czarist bureaucracy red’ as I think he put it in relation to the bullying of non-Russian nationalities from the centre. And he had the honesty to try to confront it and change it. As is well known, he was too ill, entrusted the job to Trotsky who fucked up big time. Although Trotsky may have been right when he said years later even if he had forced Stalin out of the leadership, even the party, it might have been too late such was the power, with Lenin’s approval, he’d amassed.
So we’re back to Lenin and democracy again..
stuart,
It does not actually make that explicit. It does criticise Sweden for not guaranteeing his non-extradition to the US, but does not explicitly state opposition to extradition. It also says that ‘not just’ rape charges are involved (i.e, Wikileaks), but does attack those who talk of a ‘honeytrap’ as ‘conspiracy theorists’. It does not even admit that the ‘honeytrap’ theory might be true and the missing link between this otherwise seemingly disembodied aspects of the case. It actually tries to have it both ways.
Its a classic example of a particular left genre that tries to please both sides of an argument and ends up pleasing no-one.
#307 ‘Its a classic example of a particular left genre that tries to please both sides of an argument and ends up pleasing no-one.’
Spot on. Given that reality is usually more complex than many would like, sometimes it’s a valiant exercise, but not in this case.
Does anyone remember the Friends of Salman Rushdie btw?
An important point about Lenin was that following the defeat of the German revolution he had realised that you could not directly export the methods of the Bolsheviks to the West. It was why from 1921 he was arguing for the united front policy in the advanced capitalist countries. This had begun to be developed by Gramsci, who understood the huge social alliance that was necessary to build a hegemonic force capable of confronting capitalism. Most of the so-called revolutionary left have essentially ignored this (or paid it lip service) and as the left has suffered defeat after defeat (many of which they misconstrued as victory – most obviously 1989) then they have become increasingly isolated.
This has also been combined with an infantile idea of ‘false consciousness’ and the belief that if things got worse (e.g. welfare states eroded, unemployment grew, etc) then the working class would wake up to its predicament and challenge the ruling classes. This was particularly popular up until the 1980s and the idea that somehow the welfare state was providing an ideological covering for capitalism (oh how I wish they’d once again cloak us). However, the proceeding three decades have shown that as previous gains are taken away so the left gets weaker (this includes – primarily – the ‘socialist’ systems in Eastern Europe which despite their weaknesses provided a huge block to the advance of imperialism).
In the developed capitalist world there is no chance of socialist advance at the moment. The occupy movements are not going to storm the palaces in Madrid or Athens for example and open the doors to socialism. The left has to unite around a programme of supporting the implementation of progressive reforms that improve the conditions of the working class. The revolutionary left’s role in this is to realise that the capitalist class will fight back and to help mobilise society behind progressive governments. The one revolutionary victory in the last quarter of a century, in Venezuela, has come and been sustained via the ballot box.
redscribe/vanya,
The SW article says…
‘It would be a huge victory for the US to have Julian Assange in a cell next to Bradley Manning. That cannot be allowed to happen.’
To me that is about as explicit as it need be. To suggest that the SWP are vague on extradition to the US is to not debate in good faith, it is to seek out differences in a sectarian manner.
The fact is that we end up at the same destination having travelled different journeys. The SWP presents its case in a way that affords the women a far greater sense of dignity. They are the better socialists and are able to expose the limits of bourgeois justice more effectively. You, in trying to be, supposedly, good anti-imperialists have dropped your guard on the question of womens’ rights.
Clearly implicating Comrade Newman in an alliance with Islamic Fundamentalists. Give up the bacon and the terrorists have won.
Sam64,
Victor Serge had it right about Bolshevism, I think, Sam . . .
‘It is often said that “the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning”. Well, I have no objection. Only Bolshevism also contained many other germs – a mass of other germs – and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the victorious revolution ought not to forget.”
I haven’t got the time (or the inclination, to be perfectly honest) to research proper answers to your points about Lenin and democracy – perhaps another comrade will do so. Just to say, in general terms, the Bolshevik attitude to the other left parties in the period after 1917 largely depended on their position towards the new worker’s state (run initially by a coalition government of Bolsheviks and Left SR’s) – if they were supportive of the new social order they were able to organise openly – if they were vacillating or conniving with the Whites then they were persecuted and chucked out of what was left of the soviets. Internal democracy still continued in a rather tenuous way – there was a Left Opposition and then a Worker’s Opposition between 1917 and 1921. Votes were taken over various important issues and we now know how individuals voted. All this at a time when thousands and thousand of workers and socialists were being killed in the war.
Trotsky himself wrote in his diaries: ‘Lenin created the apparatus. The apparatus created Stalin’.
#310
“The fact is that we end up at the same destination having travelled different journeys. The SWP presents its case in a way that affords the women a far greater sense of dignity. They are the better socialists and are able to expose the limits of bourgeois justice more effectively. You, in trying to be, supposedly, good anti-imperialists have dropped your guard on the question of womens’ rights.”
Absolute nonesense.
The reality is that you are using a specious so-called feminist argument to impose a limit on the right of Assange to defend himself and others to assist him in that.
The fact that you don’t want to see Assange deported to the USA (and while that is still a threat talk of ariving at destinations is a bit premature in any event) is utterly irrelevant. I don’t care how clearly you say that, if what you say elsewhere is in reality backing up the case which could lead that to happen.
If someone believes that a woman is in fact being used wittingly or unwittingly to have a man fitted up, how is going along with that doing anything positive for the dignity of women?
You’re the one whose arguing in bad faith.
1. Stuart, Given the SWP’s previous run in with Galloway, and the Respect fiasco, it is understandable why people view the SWP’s line as driven more by history than principal.
2. RedCogs trial by Trot of a woman he has never met of accusations about a man he is equally unfamiliar with based on what he has read on the internet is equally rather unedifying
3. Karl’s clumsy driving of his T47 through the basic tenants of woman’s rights is, well rather to be expected, coming from a political tradition that hasn’t had an original thought since the Berlin Wall fell. Good to see that the CIA are as powerful as they ever were, that explains every defeat we have had every time, every where.
The key points are surly the same Assange should not be deported to the US, if there is a case in Sweden based on the accusations then he should answer them in court.
Finally George Galloway should concentrate on what he does best, opposing imperialism and keep his mouth shut on things that happen underneath other people’s sheets, he’s terrible on abortion, and his comments on the accusations and what defines rape are equally Neanderthal- what ever the truth maybe.
Vanya,
I think the women should enjoy the same rights as any other women in Sweden to be heard respectfully, having made the allegations. And similarly, Assange should have the right to defend himself as any other accused man would. I do not think that we as socialists should join in any chorus that denigrates the women.
Be that as it may, the situation is heavily compromised in as much as the system cannot separate itself effectively from US imperialist interests. Capitalism does not have the ability to do that hence the rights of both the women and Assange are damaged. It is better that socialists demonstrate system weakness than denigrate women who make allegations about sexual assault, however much we may despise US imperialism.
The last I heard GG was against abortion personally but did not advocate making those views the basis of legislation. It’s called walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Hopefully we haven’t reached the stage where a person’s conscience is being policed? If so then we really are talking about the emergence of a socialist Taliban.
GG on rape: ‘No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape.’
John,
Yeah but having unprotected sex when your partner has specified that they want safe sex is ‘sex games’. The law doesn’t say the same.
PS the number of people with HIV/AIDS in the UK is at its historical high, maybe folks need to be educated a little more on the implications of unsafe sex.
And this is GG’s fault?
312 Pete
Only really a set of rhetorical questions really Pete!
John,
Oh pleease my dear, listen carefully to George’s words, as usual he is trying to have it all ways. No means no but maybe it means yes, or maybe, nudge nudge wink wink your partner meant yes but said no- ah the wonderful moments of sex games.
I am making no points on the verify of the Assange accusations, I do not know as don’t you or anyone else on this blog.
The point is that his intervention was not helpful- it did after all lead to two Respect women – Salma and Kate wanting nothing to do with Respect or GG. Now I see their departure as a loss, but maybe the old UK Trot habit of fewer but better is the road to victory, it has been as we know so successful up to date.
You can spin it how you want, but sometimes it is better just to admit that it was unfortunate and the expression when in a hole it is better to stop digging should ring a bell.
GG has some very strong points, but his take on sexual politics aren’t his most attractive features. He doesn’t have to be perfect to be a progressive force.
An angel or devil monochrome vision of the situation is well, slightly cultist. Kinda appropriate given the subject which was originally the SWP.
May be not the best of expressions….sorry
Yes. All of this is true.
The SWP are bullies. Inner democracy doesn’t exist. People both obsess about ‘sexism’ a la Helen Shooter and imagine that they are serious about it and ignore the obvious status driven seduction-athon that is and was the male full-timer role.
Yes male CC members and apparatus management types promoted women above their ability — as a come on. I saw it. Yes some women fell for it (power is seductive after all) and slept with power brokers to get some rotten little job that made them feel important. Names aren’t hard to come up with for any member who was honest with themselves as it blatantly happened. Other women, with more honour and self respect, got burnt by refusing to play along of course.
But in a moribund little group of young clever clogs, with no actual reality to measure themselves against, dullards, careerists, sycophants, insecure power trippers and ego-maniacs all got caught up in the machinations of an equally deluded but more powerful bunch of clever yet alienated bossy-boots enjoying the power they had got after clambering to the top in a vicious little world.
So yes I am not surprised that some women got tret badly, and it’s rotten. But, not to make it ok, so did many other genuine ‘comrades’.
It may not have involved a greasy come-on, but did involve the things Andy mentions in his dealings with Helen Shooter and pork-scratchings episode. True, all true.
When it was considered that a member was an ‘outsider’, or an enemy, a mixture of lies, ostracizing, whispers, full frontal psychological attacks, and other ‘lord of the flies’ type behaviour would come into operation.
The female leaders were just as capable of sticking the boot in, often with a more cruel twist. Though if sex was part of their power play, and the ‘comrade’ was ‘below’ them in the pecking order, it was of a destructive rather than manipulative and exploitative kind. What better way to damn Andy than call him sexist? Racist? Hard to allege if white yourself.
That’s what happens when a small group of people get twisted up but have a messianic belief in themselves. Especially if, as Andy says, a lot in power come from a middle class and toff backgrounds. These cruel games are learned at papa’s table and drunk in mama’s milk. And if you aren’t used to it? Fight harder and dirtier or get crushed. Macho, some might say.
If you are born to believe that you are meant to be on top — you’ll get there. Even if that’s the top of The Occupy movement. So I look at some characters around the world who have been promoted by this grubby machine with genuine despair and horror.
The sex thing is just part of this sad hierarchy game. Part of the monstrous institutional cluster-fuck. It’s not what’s on the minds of ‘comrades’, of course. Most want to change the world for the better and are nice and kind people. But something is wrong in the bones of the group.
So it’s going on now, just with slightly different characters (although most remain the same). Believe me I know more than I wish I did, with all the participants. I still fear the rumour mill though. So I’ll say no more.
I don’t understand this from Pete Shield:
“Karl’s clumsy driving of his T47 through the basic tenants of woman’s rights is, well rather to be expected, coming from a political tradition that hasn’t had an original thought since the Berlin Wall fell. Good to see that the CIA are as powerful as they ever were, that explains every defeat we have had every time, every where.”
Pete, I’m the person defending women’s rights here, I’m pointing out that the woman who has actually made a formal statement to the police has said that the sex was consensual and that she did not want the involvement of the police crime unit.
It’s you and Stuart who are denyiing her right to speak for herself, through your support for the CIA’s attempts to manufacture a “case” in contradiction to the woman’s statement.
The view of the woman who made the statement is that the sex was consensual and that she did not want the involvement of the police crime unit.
The line of the CIA is that there has been a “rape allegation” which Assange “must face.”
You and Stuart are lining up with the CIA here and against what the woman said in her statement.
As for my “political tradition,” yes if you’re referring to communism then it’s a proud tradition as far as I’m concerned.
But it doesn’t surprise me that someone like you who actively supports the CIA, actively suppoerts the CIA’s cynical exploitation of women and actively opposes women’s right to speak for themselves, it doesn’t surprise me that you are also an anti-communist.
I'd rather not say.,
That was brilliant – a prose poem obituary to the SWP
Karl Stewart,
I am not ‘lining up with the CIA’. I believe that the women should be able to put their case without being subjected to a chorus of abuse, part of which you are determined to become. It does not help the cause of women if those who report assault are treated in this way. Regardless of what may have happened in this particular case, you are displaying of lack of awareness and sensitvity around the question of trauma.
stuart,
‘It would be a huge victory for the US to have Julian Assange in a cell next to Bradley Manning. That cannot be allowed to happen.’
“To me that is about as explicit as it need be. To suggest that the SWP are vague on extradition to the US is to not debate in good faith, it is to seek out differences in a sectarian manner.”
I meant extradition to Sweden. I missed out those crucial worlds from my post #307. Obviously the SWP is clearly opposed to extradition of Assange to the US. I suspect a good chunk of the ConDem government would be unable to stomach that also.
Actually, I am not opposed to extraditing Assange to Sweden for rape.
Providing a prima facie case is produced that he actually raped someone. The problem is that there is no such case. The main statement they are trying to use does not clearly allege rape, but gives the impression someone changed their mind after a sexual encounter. The purported victim also refused to sign it – there is no dispute that it was drafted by a cop and that refusal to sign makes it the work of the cop.
Other accusations, such as the ‘deliberately broken condom’ alleged by Anna Ardin have been contradicted by forensic evidence that shows that a broken condom that was produced as ‘evidence’ by her was broken alright, but was also unused and contained no DNA traces. Which suggests a deliberate attempt to submit false evidence after making up claims on the hoof.
And then there is the background of Ardin, as a Swedish Social Democrat expelled from Cuba for engaging in agitation against the Stalinist regime for an organisation that works with right-wing, CIA-funded exiles. It is an incredible coincidence that such a person should a few years later be the only accuser (who signed a statement anyway) against Assange, who is on the US enemies list and who right-wing US politicians have called for to be summarily executed.
Anna Ardin is a very suspicious character. In her own way, there are as many grounds to suspect her of CIA assetship as there were to suspect Ramon Mercader, the assassin of Leon Trotsky, of being an agent of Stalin’s GPU.
But the SWP says that to say this is some sort of sexist act. They don’t really believe that, actually. What they are doing is political opportunism, to appease a political layer of semi-radicalised feminist activists who are sufficiently upset at the attacks on women of the current government to be (in the SWP’s view) potentially recruitable but are not sufficiently class-conscious to give a rat’s arse about someone like Assange, who the CIA are cleverly accusing of a sexual crime in order to manipulate a weak left and let them get away with lynching him.
Incidentally, this is another reason why I am not that keen on this thread and its stuff about Martin Smith. I have no way of knowing anything about his personal conduct, but I do know that many times in the past the SWP have made a ‘turn’ and thrown overboard important figures that were considered useful once but no longer due to ‘changed circumstances’ in the real world. This campaign against ‘sexism’ in the SWP appears linked to positions in the real world – the refusal to concretely defend Assange, and the vilification of Galloway and Naomi Wolf for doing so.
That is a political turn away from anti-imperialist campaigning towards pro-imperialist forms of only semi-radicalised feminism. It seems to me that Martin Smith could be just as much a victim of that ‘turn’ as was say, John Deason, when the SWP turned away from industrial militancy and things like the Right To Work Campaign towards the ‘downturn’ and a propagandistic mode in the early 1980s.
You are completely supporting the CIA Stuart.
The line “there has been a ‘rape allegation’ and Assange must face it” is 100 per cent the line of the CIA.
With regard to the woman (one woman, not two women) who has made a statement, she has said, in that statement and in her own words that she claims to have had consensual sex with Assange.
She further states, in her own statement and in her own words, that she does not want the involvement of the police crime unit.
Your view, and the view of the UK and Swedish governments, each acting in obedience to the US government, is that her own statement of her own view is to be disregarded.
My view is that if she is claiming to have chosen to have consensual sex with Assange, then that is a consensual sexual encounter between two consenting adults.
And therefore none of our business.
You are taking a position that is identical to that of the CIA, and a position that has zero regard for the welfare of the woman who made the statement.
She has been cynically exploited by the CIA here, the CIA has released her most intimate private and personal details as a key part of its “get Assange” campaign.
Those forces behind this “get Assange” campaign have absolutely no interest in any trial of this non-case – none of this will ever come to trial – it is solely a pretext to imprison Assange in order to rendeer him to the US.
The nature of this non-case is also politically useful for the CIA in that it undercuts the support for Assange.
And the nonsense being repeatedly spouted by useful idiots such as yourself and various others on the left indicate that this part of the CIA’s “get Assange” project has had some success.
I’m not sure whether this clumsy metaphor is the result of ignorance or a desire to make a subtle reference to Karl’s views on tanks.
Whichever it is, I’m not going to rise to it.
This is a mistake?
i don’t believe that i have made any remarks regarding the Assange matter, confining myself to the original ‘sexism within the SWP’ and a few other trivial things (oats and geography).
i’m not sure whether you mean Helen Shooter? If so please clarify for i have not subjected her (or anyone else) to “trial by Trot”.
redcogs,
I suspect he means me, not you. He got the names garbled.
It’s a pretty awful argument, that could be used against all expressions of dissident opinion on virtually anything, since most people who are expected to form an opinion on almost every issue are unlikely to meet, or even if they do, unlikely to get to know, most of the political figures etc. they need to form opinions about and evaluate.
Apparently we should trust the bourgeois media, cops, judges, state officials, politicians, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all over material we get to read on the internet (even if some of it is leaked by some of those people in the first place!), and should not form independent opinions of our own that contradict an official narrative.
‘Trial by Trot’ is such a terrible thing. Unlike Trial by corrupt cop, trial by feminist cop (could not possibly be corrupt therefore, arf arf), trial by Murdoch, or trial by Rushbringer, trial by William Hague or Claes Borgstrom, or maybe even trial by Denis MacShane (who are not that different in their politics, if you examine it closely).
All these are preferable to ‘trial by Trot’.
But he has no objection to George Galloway or Naomi Wolf (or Julian Assange) being subjected to ‘Trial by Trot’ (as long as its the right kind of Trot!), or for that matter trial by Guardian liberal.
One thing I think Trotsky once did observe was that where many English reformists are concerned, there is no need to appoint a policeman to keep them in line. They have an inward policeman. They police themselves.
This kind of argument just illustrates the truth of that observation.
@327It seems to me that Martin Smith could be just as much a victim of that ‘turn’ as was say, John Deason
I think there could be something in that. There’s usually more to these things than meets the eye. Remember Julie Waterson’s departure from the CC ten or so years ago and the circumstances surrounding it?
I think that Judith Orr could eventually “walk the plank” over their strange ‘Arab Spring’ line and the “editorial error” in SW of a few weeks back. They are good a finding a fall guy.
redscribe,
I cannot identify any shift in the position of the SWP over this question. I belive I’m correct in saying that the SWP position is one that sees womens’ oppression as an inevitable feature of class society. And whenever women are subjected to sexual abuse they have the option of seeking justice through the bourgeois system, however the system is one that is generally not very effective and the pursuit of justice can be a terribly humiliating ordeal, additional to that which has already been encountered. For that reason, socialists make it a point of principle not to behave in ways that make the ordeal far worse whenever a women has bravely made the decision to come forward.
Now as far as I’m aware nothing has changed. That has always been the approach taken by the SWP and in the current case under discussion here, nothing is any different. Far from undergoing some kind of shift, the SWP are simply maintaining consistency.
But of course in this particular case, there is the added complication of Assange and his relationship with US imperialism. For this reason, the SWP are making it clear that, regardless of anything else, nothing should happen that in anyway draws Assange closer to the clutches of the US state. If this adds a load of further complications then that is down to the failings of the bourgeois justice system. It should not be taken as a cue to denigrate women who have made complaints.
Unless the woman is an SWP member, and the complaint is against a male leading meber of the SWP, in which case … …
Maybe so, but the issue is not Martin Smith’s own personal behaviour really, but the way that the SWP’s macheinery kicked in to protect him; and – for example – the famours standing ovation and foot stomping that was totalu inappropriate for a man accused of harassment of a woman.
Interesting hypothesis; which would mean the SWP lurching further towards the terrotory occupied by the AWL
@336which would mean the SWP lurching further towards the terrotory occupied by the AWL
‘redscribe’ may have nailed it.
The SWP are experts at sniffing out the next demographic and niche market, however small, who are open to recruitment and this is one of the reasons why they have maintained their position as big fish in the ever decreasing pond that is the British Ultra-Left.
I rarely look at HP – I mean, who wants to read a bunch of Zionists, of varying degrees of vileness, agreeing with each other – but I note that some commentators on there are begrudgingly praising the SWP over this.
stuart,
“But of course in this particular case, there is the added complication of Assange and his relationship with US imperialism.”
This is what is so nauseatingly hypocritical about the SWP’s position.
Sections of feminist anti-rape campaigners can see through this rubbish, that this is not some bolt-on optional extra, but the driving force of the whole thing. They are denounced by SWP hacks with an eye on the next layer of recruits, who when they have finished with this particular opportunist binge, will forget about these matters as they move on to the next opportunity.
Particularly if this one fails, which it may do as those who are so politically myopic as to not smell a rat about the Assange case are not really likely to have much staying power as supporters of a supposedly revolutionary party. You really are rubbing shoulders with the AWL and the ‘decents’. Hope you will be happy together.
andy newman,
I would not claim to know the intimate details of this and that is not really my point. He may well be as bad as you say, but his accusers could easily be just as bad and known to be so, in which case all kinds of odd reactions are possible. The ranks in such organisations are not stupid, and someone who has a base of support does not just lose it because they are accused of something that brings disapproval particularly if there is some suspicion of hypocrisy.
It may be a sign of volatility and rapidly shifting alignments within an organisation that bans organised dissent but can do nothing about moods. Maybe a lot of people thought he had been unjustly treated, and wanted to tell others in the SWP leadership to back off. I don’t know, I don’t think the SWP fits the template of a cult because cults have charismatic leaders and I don’t see a charismatic leader involved here.
It is politically unstable, volatile, and it also has bureaucratic restrictions on organised dissent (still there despite all the democracy talk of a few years ago). So I don’t know the internal dynamics of this really, from my point of view all you can do is try to deduce things from the way these things interact with the wider world.
Has anyone thought about the fact that Smith has put himself on the line over a long period as a leading anti fascist organiser (if anyone has been on these anti edl demos you will know what I mean) and that whilst we can all agree that he needs to be held to account for his actions, he doesn’t deserve trial by internet based on what specific detail exactly? Sounds like the SWP have dealt with this through their internal structures as should be expected.
Well that is an interesting point, but while charismatic leaders may be a typical feature of cults, the psychological dynamics of cults are not dependent upon such a leader; but are predicated upon group pressures towards conformity – indeed,if we look at the Scientologists, it continues as a cult long after Ron L Hubbard left the building.
Cliff certainly was a charismatic leader, and has often been observed the SWP as an institution did somewhat mimic aspects of his individual personality.
True, The SWP seems to operate a sort of “franchise” system, where the leading players are allowed to manage their own area of responsibility without any accounatbility, as long as their activities don’t start to impact on the others. This means that while the SWP can seem united behind a project like the Socialist Alliance or Respect, that was only because Rees and German were allowed to use the SWP brand for their franchise, obscuring the fact that other leading players i SWP were neither supportive nor involved, and therefore not participating in SA or Resepct was also a valid option for SWP members.
This can seem bewilderingly inconsistent to outside observers, but allows the SWP to make rapid opportunist turns; and they occassionally throw someone out of the balloon
No, I have NEVER thought that Martin Smith was anything but a self-aggrandising liability in anti-fascsist campaingign
I couldn’t resist though so a cursory search produced the following
http://blog.yahoo.com/_SP4PNKR7USC4QSMD2UDCKR3LKQ/articles/780230/index
Might be useful in a tight situation but it would inevitably drive clumsily especially going round corners.
#342 And it contributes to the turn over problem. When people are thrown out or disciplined they invariably take some friends/comrades with them, or someone else becomes disillusioned at the “mystery” disciplinary process that they leave unhappily.
Exquisite!
I was approaching this from the wrong end.
http://archive.org/stream/sewagedisposalwo00easdrich/sewagedisposalwo00easdrich_djvu.txt
I once read a pamphlet by the Revolutionary Democratic Group, an “external faction” of the SWP, dating back to the 1980s. It claimed that the sudden swerves and “stick bending” in the SWP made it resemble a lorry which constantly lost some people through them being flung off every time the lorry made a sharp swerve on the road.
I worked with an ex-SWP member in anti-poll tax activity (so circa 1990). His attitude to his old organisation was a sort of amused contempt.
Andy
Don’t wish to be pedantic And, but there is contradiction between posts 341 and 342: uniformity and free lancing.
I suppose this was to be expected. Four young SWP members who were planning to raise issues at the party’s conference in three weeks around the internal regime and matters raised in this post have just been expelled. More are under heavy manners. This all looks like going very badly wrong for the hierarchy. Some CC members are also encouraging a petition to return Martin S to the leadership. You really couldn’t make this up.
I’m not sure that there is a contradiction, enforcing conformity does not necessarily mean uniformity; it merely refines a sub-set of approved behaviours and attitudes.
There will be toleration of someone specialising in a particular sub-set of approved SWP activities, as long as they are not “oppositionist” to the whole.
I missed this, worth expanding here.
The interesting thing about the whispering campaign against me and my friends for being “laddish”, almost 25 years ago in Bristol, was that my freinds included the only black activist, and two other black members who were less active. These were the only West Indians in the SWP in Bristol.
There was clearly a heirarchy of oppressions at work, where false accusations of “sexism”, which had no foundation, were used regardless of the impact it had on forcing out black working class men (who were BTW NOT sexist), who did not easily fit in with the preferred lifestyles of the middle class chatterers who “led” the branch.
Not sure that was the way it was perceived – if you’re referring to Rees and German with Respect at any rate. You’ve probably remember their indignation that many comrades weren’t sufficiently online and regret that they hadn’t had ‘hard enough’ arguments about this turn, i.e fully enforced their will.
But the position of the SWP has been consistent, it is not a question of any opportunist shifting. The SWP have always tried to see things dialectically and see capitalism as a ‘totality’. What this means in practice is that women are exploited under capitalism, so are many people across the world as a result of US imperialism. As situations such as this arise, we cannot as socialists reduce it to a question of US imperialism OR women. We have to present a case in such a way as to demonstrate how the system exploits different groups AT THE SAME TIME.
See Engels…
‘To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. His communication is ‘yea, yea; nay, nay’; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” For him, a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis, one to the other.’ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm
See Lukacs…
‘Thus bourgeois thought remains fixated on these forms which it believes to be immediate and original and from there it attempts to seek an understanding of economics, blithely unaware that the only phenomenon that has been formulated is its own inability to comprehend its own social foundations. Whereas for the proletariat the way is opened to a complete penetration of the forms of reification. It achieves this by starting with what is dialectically the clearest form (the immediate relation of capital and labour). It then relates this to those forms that are more remote from the production process and so includes and comprehends them, too, in the dialectical totality.’ http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc07_3.htm#s4
Now of course you can disagree profoundly with the SWP position. But you are very wrong to claim that they have shifted away from any original theoretical understsanding.
Some things you say can be neither proved nor disproved on a blog. It becomes nothing more than gossip which suits your particular purpose.
However, other things you claim can actually be tested out, using evidence available. You ignored the question I posed to you at post 196, this may have been an oversight, I’m not saying it was deliberate on your part.
In response to your claim…
‘It is only since the split with the Counterfire mob that the SWP has started to openly compete with the AWL for the pro-NATO franchise’
I asked….
‘Are you familiar with the positions taken by the SWP over Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004 and the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon in 2005?’
My contention here is that you say things that suit your political objectives, however when tested against documentary sources they can be proved incorrect. Can you explain how you conclude that the SWP became ‘pro-NATO’, ‘after the Counterfire split’. That would suggest an observable shift around 2008. However there wasn’t one.
Wel they were deluded in their abilities nd following, and perhaps also were ideailistic about the SWP; after all when you read Alex Callinicos’s descriptions of the swP when writng to other left currents abrad, you would think he had only a passing acquaintenceship with the actual organisation.
There is clearly a different position with regards to the SWP’s mealy mouthed pro-NATO position in Libya and Syria, from previous positions; such as – for example – the line adopted by the SWP in 2008 over the war between Russia and Georgia – for example – of NATO encircement of Georgia; where the SWP did not break with the rest of the StWC in broadly opposing Georgia’s US sponsored aggression.
Although the SWP did support the anti-socialist Otpor organisation in Serbia, the SWP more significantly stood foursquare against NATO’s aggression. This differentiated it from – for example – the AWL who supported the Albanian fascist seperatist group, the KLA.
Now in 2012, the SWP is enthusiastic about the Western/Gulf promoted insurrgency in Syria; a position analagous to suporting NATO in the Serbian war.
@354That would suggest an observable shift around 2008. However there wasn’t one.
The shift grew out of a profound misreading of the Arab Spring as it related to Libya and Syria.
The open siding and support of The West with opposition forces (forces that the SWP unconditionally supported in the case of Libya and still support in Syria) should have prompted some circumspection. It didn’t.
Instead the party excuses this with generalised stuff about “supporting the oppressed against the oppressor”.
That can be used by the Right, and frequently is, to back any old reactionary guff.
#354 A fundamental flaw in what you are saying is that your argument is based on the apparent decision of certain socialists to abandon an alleged socialist principle that does not exist, in the name of fighting imperialism.
There is a general principle that anyone claiming to defend the rights of women should be in favour of creating an atmosphere where victims of sexual violence and abuse are happier to come forward, and where the ordeal of providing evidence is made as bearable as possible.
But that is separate from the question of whether someone accused of a specific act or acts of rape, or those seeking to defend him, should feel precluded from mentioning evidence that shows or even suggests that there is something flawed in the case, including issues relating to the character of a complainant.
If I am told that a woman is alleging rape, my response is alaways that she she report it and preserve evidence asap. If I have no reasonable grounds to believe otherwise I will assume she is telling the truth and in particular expect any police officer she reports the offence to do the same or be the subject of a complaint.
However, if I have been presented with what I believe to be evidence that the allegation is bogus for any reason, including political reasons, then it’s not a question of being placed in a dilema as to whether I should go against my principles because in that situation I don’t accept that the principle exists.
And there is no sensitive way to say that you think someone is being fitted up, is there?
If a leading member of your organisation was accused of something like Assange, and you had good reason th believe it was false, I bet you wouldn’t be thinking, ‘ooh here’s a dilema, do I side with the enemy by seeing this person sent down for something they didn’t do, by not speaking out or do I violate the rights of women by speaking out, thereby casting an insensitve slur on the character of this woman?’
Sorry David I missed your contribution. That was the point i was trying to make. Hope you are okay.
This is absolutely right Stuart. I agree 100 per cent with what you’ve said there.
We must vigorously oppose the CIA smear campaign against Assange, expose it for the malicious lie that it is, and AT THE SAME TIME, also condemn the CIA for its cynical exploitation of the woman who has made this statement.
#346
http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/25th-Floor-High-on-Rebellion-lyrics-Patti-Smith/FAF062ABBE4BB9E2482569A40026036C
The above is for you George its all about the transformation of waste
The SWP is a revolutionary socialist party so I think a strand of its thinking is wary of completely opposing movements in Libya and Syria that, however coopted or tacitly supported by some western powers, are inherently of the people.
Andy Newman #356, jellytot #357,
Despite your attempts to spin things around to suit your own purposes (such as pretending that the SWP is ‘pro-NATO), the basic approach of the SWP hasn’t essentially changed since the Cold War days when they would support those struggling against what they termed Stalinist states despite the fact that western governments would claim to support likewise. Effectively that represented a continuation of the 1914 position of the main enemy being at home- but opposing your enemy at home doesn’t mean supporting your enemy’s enemy. And so just because the US will inevitably try to influence ‘pro-democracy’ movements, that should not be a cue to withdraw support for these forces on the basis of their being ‘counter-revolutionary’. At the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq the US were talking about bringing ‘democracy’ to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Surely we should not oppose democracy in those countries because of that.
As you can see from this article in 2004, the SWP were taking that view then…
‘There are many cases in between, which require careful analysis and well thought-out tactics. But you cannot arrive at these if you dismiss as inevitably counter-revolutionary every movement which neoliberals and agents of imperialism try to influence.’ http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/2004/05/neolib.htm
So there is no evidence of a recent shift as you like to claim. The theoretical position is drawn from the ‘dialectical totality’ stuff that I linked at post 353. Western imperialism is not the only oppressor. Yes, we have to oppose western imperialism not least because we live in the west. But we still have something to say about the local oppressor. And so, opposing the US backed Georgian offensive in 2008 did not mean supporting the Russians.
Vanya,
The problem with your position IMO is that it is too weak on the question of capitalist oppression of women. Women are being oppressed at the same time as US imperialism is wreaking havoc. A better response is one that exposes capitalism as a totality using the dialectical approach. My approach offers no concessions to US imperialism much as you wish to disagree. And in any case, disagree a much as you like but there is no evidence, as some have argued, that the SWP have ‘shifted’ position.
The local oppressor in Ossetia is the Georgians.
stuart,
Stuart, this is silly.
The SWP’s position on Libya and Syria has been distintly different from the SWP’s recent positions.
We can see this by comparison, from about 2000 (maybe earlier) until about 2008, the SWP’s position on opposing imperialism broadly matched that of the CPB and Socialist Action, taking a similar stance on most issues. Since 2008, you have been distinctly different from those groups, and closer to the AWL.
#364 So Stuart failing to disregard evidence that an allegation that a woman has been raped is being weak on the ‘capitalist oppression of women’?
What utter crap. Not only is it crap, but I don’t believe for one minute that your party would implement that line in practice if it meant an allegation against one of your leading members not being defended properly.
Of course the logic behind this position is that because so many rapists go unpunished it’s acceptable for men accused of rape to have limits placed on their ability to raise evidence to defend themselves, and that if this leads to wrongful convictions then so be it.
After all, men are oppressors collectively and every single one of them a potential rapist.
But on the other hand, capitalist justice means that nobody can expect a fair trial, so you can always argue something completely different if the circumstances suit.
Stuart,
On the subject of this thread, I disagree with a description of SWP as “sexist”. I consider it to be a consistently anti-sexist organisation.
Never having been an SWP members, I don’t have first-hand recollections of any abuses, but I have heard numerous complaints from friends who’ve been memebrs of bullying of various types – none of them of a sexualised or sexist nature – but straightforward bullying, being ordered and bossed around by party leaders, of either gender.
My view is that this is not peculiar to the SWP, but I do think there is a particular form of bullying that is inherent in democratic-centralist organisations and I see this as the key problem.
I’d be interested in your views on that?
#368 I wonder what Stuart’s views on that will be.
stuart,
“But the position of the SWP has been consistent, it is not a question of any opportunist shifting. The SWP have always tried to see things dialectically and see capitalism as a ‘totality’. What this means in practice is that women are exploited under capitalism, so are many people across the world as a result of US imperialism. As situations such as this arise, we cannot as socialists reduce it to a question of US imperialism OR women. We have to present a case in such a way as to demonstrate how the system exploits different groups AT THE SAME TIME.”
This is twaddle, and no matter how many times you repeat it will remain twaddle.
First of all, in Marxist terms it is twaddle. Women in general are not exploited under capitalism. Some women under capitalism are exploiters, not the exploited. Was Margaret Thatcher exploited under capitalism? Is Hillary Clinton? No, they are women of the ruling class and not exploited at all. Ruling class women sometimes suffer relative disadvantage compared to ruling class men because of women’s oppression, which affects all classes, but they are shielded from most of it by class privilege.
This very revealing terminological error indicates a childish lack of understanding of basic Marxism. If women in general are ‘exploited’ under capitalism, then women must logically constitute a class. You can search every book on dialectics and historical materialism you can lay your hands on, but you will not find one anywhere that argued that women are an exploited class under capitalism.
I don’t know if you are aware of this, but there is a long and inglorious tradition of the misuse of dialectics, and long abstract quotes used in irrelevant context being used to mess with people’s logical processes in order to defend things that are logically indefensible. I suggest, if you have not heard of it, you google a work called ‘Studies in Dialectical Materialism’ by Thomas Gerard Healy for a prime example of that obscurantist genre.
This by the way is outside the tradition of the SWP. The SWP I am pretty sure used to take the piss mercilessly out of Healy’s bullshit misuse of dialectics. They also were capable of explaining the ideas of people like Lukacs in a comprehensible manner. John Rees’ wrote a quite interesting and educational book on this.
But one very good quote from Lenin is worth bearing in mind.
“There is no such thing as abstract truth. The truth is always concrete”. Now down to the concretes.
The fact is that there is evidence that suggests that the sole accuser, in this case, Anna Ardin, on the balance of probabilities based on past activities and current behaviour, is most likely a CIA asset.
There is also evidence that says that the other so-called accuser refused to sign the statement attributed to her, which was drafted by a cop who is a personal friend of Anna Ardin.
In saying that to raise this evidence ‘disrespects’ the so-called accusers (one of whom does not seem to be doing any accusing), you are in effect in favour of suppressing evidence of the involvement of an imperialist secret police agency in framing Assange. That makes you an apologist for the CIA, just as much as those who covered up and pooh-poohed allegations of Stalinist terror in the 1930s against oppositionists were apologists for the GPU.
All the ‘sexist’ baiting in the world cannot cover up this fact. You are acting as an apologist for the state in this debate. You are covering up for a crime that is being undertaken by deadly enemies of the working class movement.
I am sure that in your own mind you are acting out of party loyalty and in a way that is commendable. Many who defended terrible acts by the Communist Parties in the past also believed they were defending socialism, the party, and other good things. Subjectively, they often were. Objectively, they were doing the exact opposite.
This is not a position of defending all sides in this case at all. This is taking the side of someone who is concretely a suspect in an act that the working class movement should regard as a crime against us collectively, simply because she is making flimsy accusations of another crime that the bourgeois state (or rather two of them) often do not really pursue that hard even when there is real evidence, but in this case is blatantly breaking its own laws to pursue flimsy and obviously phoney ‘evidence’ for naked political motives.
#367 Sorry that should have said,
‘…failing to disregard evidence that an allegation that a woman has been raped is bogus is being weak on the ‘capitalist oppression of women’?’
I’ve just had a look at the Weekly Worker – I’ve not read it yet, but the headline seems quite relevant to much of this discussion:
SWP conference: Crazy contortions of SWP central committee
Following criticisms of the SWP’s culture and practice in the first two Internal Bulletins, the leadership has mobilised to rubbish opponents.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/942/internal-bulletins-crazy-contortions-of-swp-central-committee
Howard Kirk,
The difference being that the WW sticks to the politics rather than the snide revenge comments that were the substance of the main article – which by the way – were voiced by Sue Blackwell many years ago.
tigger,
No, the Weakly Worker itself has a disfunctiinal understanding of what politics even is, trapped as they are in a delusional paradigm; sharing much of the same pathology as the swp
You see, this is interesting, becaue you quote Harman, and not Rees, German, Bambury or Nineham, who were the driving forces in developing the SWP’s position on imperialism at that time; and although nuanced Harman was transparently arguing a position closer to the SWP’s traditional third campism, and was not involved at all in the SWP’s main initiatives at that time, the Socialist Alliance and later Respect; and as was invisible in Stop the War – if he was involved at all.
There is an apparent paradox here, that explains the SWP’s general resilience, that there is a toleration of some political diversity, and even dfferent priorites of activity; while at the same time having a bullying culture to enforce group conformity. This operates in two ways, firstly that more tolerance is shown for people more prestigious in the hierarchy, (and of course even more so for the Judas-Goat fellow travellers who are not actually members of the SWP but are associated with it); secondly that the subset of approved behaviours can be quite wide as long as they are consistent with an overall envelope of accepting or acquiescing in the authority of the hierarchy; playing lip service to the silly conceits that the SWP are “revolutionaries” and a “party”; thirdly the subset of behaviours must not challenge the messianic assumption that the SWP has an historic role to play, and therefore that the cult of the “party” may justify sharp practice in the here and now.
People who step outside these tolerated behaviours will be bullied and ostracised, maligned and excluded; but those who do not chalenge the group’s own self image will be tolerated, and eccentricity may even be praised as demonstarting the SWP’s “liberal” approach
One of the clearest differences between today and the period prior to the Arab spirng is the cntrast between Afghanstan and Libya/Syria. The paradigm of the overthrow of the Taliban followed a very similar pattern, except that the forces supporting the overthrow with Afghanistan were much more credible (think of Ahmed Rashid and even Karzai himself), and there was no progresive aspect to the Taliban givernmet (unlike Gaddafi with his domestic social programmes, and pan-African aid; or Assad’s support for the Palestinians). Yet the SWP was unequivocal in its opposition to Western intervention, and westen support for the rebels – in Libya and Syria they have taken the opposite position.
#368 I think you are probably right Karl, although I do thhink we need to beware of a good point Andy made earlier on which is that just because an organisation is formally anti-something doesn’t mean that is. This being said I have yet to see the evidence on this thread that the SWP is endemically and institutionally sexist as I think is being alleged by other contributors. The actions of Smith may be reprehensible but he is (was?) only one individual. Smith I vaguely knew to speak to and he always seemed courteous, which of course, however could count for nothing. Harman I knew not at all but I did know his son Seth when he was an organiser in Manchester in the late 80s/early 90s. Seth Harman was notorious for his lack of social skills and his rudeness. He liked to give instructions by decree and seemed to think he had a god given right to do so. As Dave Ruane points out earlier this attitude often only served to undermine his authority with comrades apart from the most hackish. Harman often was ignored or openly had the piss taken out of him (mind you that would probably be a good thing for all left “leaders” if it were made compulsory on a weekly basis). Which brings me onto the other substantive issue you raise and its associated question.
The SWP clearly does have a problem with straight forwards bullying. I have lost track over the years of the people and friends I have known who have complained about the behaviour of more “senior” SWP members. Two I am thinking of now were for many years very active, moved to different cities in the UK and changed jobs on one occasion. They were “feted” for a number of years. But then mysteriously completely dropped out. Although still committed radicals if slightly dislocated, they now have little positive to say about the SWP. Their issue was that after all these years of service they could no longer put up with the bullying and the way that their views were often ignored or belittled. The male friend who is from a a very wc background in East London cited the middle class attitudes of some SWP “seniors” for this belittling. A little odd for a supposed potential organisation of the WC.
Is this related to democratic centralism? Well since I now realise that I have never been in a democratic centralist organisation I don’t know. Whatever the SWP is, it isn’t that.
# 372 I have read the article you refer to Howard and I suspect much of it may be true. But I think you have to be careful with the CPGB as they print variants of the same article every year and seem to spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing other left organisations but little else. Some refer to them as the gossip columnists of the left. Whter this means they are suffering from “delusional paradigm” sickness? Maybe they should see doctors.
Karl Stewart #368, Vanya #369,
My view is that a revolutionary party, despite its desire to help achieve a socialist society, can not and will not be an organisation in which ‘socialist behaviour’ is always to be observed.
But that reality should not IMO be an excuse for supposedly responsible socialist activists to use a blog to make allegations that can neither be proved nor disproved. It debases socialist debate. It comes across as a spiteful attack on one’s former co-thinkers, and a tactic aimed at inviting other hostile individuals to come and obtain their own their particular pound of flesh. It just doesn’t look good.
It seems to meet Andy’s strong psychological need to rationalise his lurch to the right and away from revolutionary politics.
vanya #367, redscribe #370,
I agree with some of what you say, particularly about class, not every man oppresses every woman. But on this actual subject I would point out that the SW article linked at post 154 does acknowledge the way that US imperialist interests distort the case. It notes that the authorities seem far more interested in pursuing Assange than they would in ‘ordinary’ cases. What the case should come down to ideally is what happened in the bedroom. As far as that is concerned we should be in favour of the women putting their own case. And Assange should of course have the right to defend himself. But the role of US imperialism is contaminating the situation. Suspicions that the authorities are more motivated towards getting Assange because of who he is than rape and/or sexual assault are well founded and the SW article accounts for that. But I don’t think we can insist that rape and/or sexual assault didn’t happen. Just because the CIA may want to smear its opponents doesn’t mean that we can ditch our own principles.
stuart,
“It seems to meet Andy’s strong psychological need to rationalise his lurch to the right and away from revolutionary politics.”
He certainly has moved away from revolutionary politics.
But he is still to the left of the SWP on the Assange case.
Which sort of suggests that your ‘revolutionary’ pretentions are not all they are cracked up to be.
Andy Newman, #365, #366, #375,
On the question of Georgia it was the position of the SWP that Russian imperialism is driven to pursue hegemony in the region through backing this or that local oppressor and that Russian imperialism should be opposed.
Your suggestion of SWP proximity to CPB and later the AWL doesn’t really stand up at least not in terms of shifting position. In 2000 the SWP supported the overthrow of Milosevic, I don’t believe the CPB did. The AWL from what I can see has a horribly Islamophobic line and would be highly critical of the SWP’s attempt to relate to and gain theoretical understanding of organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
As far as I can tell the SWP, throughout the US occupation of Iraq, never went along with the notion of Syria being any kind of progressive, anti-imperialist state (nor Libya, Gaddafi was rightly condemned for lining up with US imperialism). When Syrian forces left Lebanon in 2005 this was hailed as a victory for the US. The SWP supported the withrawal. The SWP hostility to Assad has remained consistent. There has been no ‘shift’.
Further I see no ‘clear difference’ in respect of Afghanistan and more recent events. The SWP position was that US intervention in Afghanistan (working with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), aimed at reducing Russian and Iranian influence, resulted in a chaotic situation in which the Taliban was able to thrive, indeed US actions went part way to actually building the Taliban. But of course, the SWP opposed the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. It opposed imperialism on both sides- then and now, Afghanistan in 1979, Georgia in 2008. And now as then, the SWP position is that US intervention makes things worse.
In terms of theoretical output on the subject of imperialism through the 2000s, Callinicos and Harman made contributions as did Rees in a book he released. I’m not aware of fundamental differences.
IMO you can not simply say that you believe there has been an SWP shift just because it suits your own political journey. You have to back this up with actual documentary evidence. This you have failed to do.
stuart,
“And Assange should of course have the right to defend himself. But the role of US imperialism is contaminating the situation. Suspicions that the authorities are more motivated towards getting Assange because of who he is than rape and/or sexual assault are well founded and the SW article accounts for that. But I don’t think we can insist that rape and/or sexual assault didn’t happen. Just because the CIA may want to smear its opponents doesn’t mean that we can ditch our own principles.”
Totally disingenuous. The CIA is not ‘contaminating’ the case. It is the driving force behind it. You have to be wilfully blind to deny this. There is no evidence of rape or sexual assault. One statement is unsigned, the work of a cop, and thereby inadmissible as evidence in a criminal case. The other has been proven to be untrue by forensic examination of a condom, shown to be unused. No evidence.
The only real evidence is circumstantial, that Ardin is most probably a spook.
Your logic is just grotesque.
The positions taken on Libya, Syria, Assange, Galloway…
What more evidence is needed?
Mind you, even Stuart admitting the CIA is involved is progress.
#377 The CPGB/ WW are the best (worst?) example of that phenomenon where certain people on the left talk pompously about unity as if they have the holy mission to bring it about but are actually (consciously or otherwise) doing their best to create division.
The gossip is all part and parcel of that.
#376 At the risk of rank hypocrisy given what I’ve said above, did people in the SWP in Manchester refer to Seth as the ‘Dear Leader’ or was that just outsiders like me? I once made the mistake of referring to him as such to someone I didn’t know was SWP and it went down like a lead balloon.
Something documentary, something actually written down would help. Show me some real evidence that the position taken over imperialism has actually changed in however many years people are claiming (Andy thinks over twelve).
That is the challenge I am throwing down here. Written evidence, not just some loose ‘opinion’. Saying something over and over again on a blog does not make it true.
You are exaggerating how much we care.
I don’t have any real interest in the SW’s political positions, “I come to bury Ceasar, not to praise him”
Stuart has indeed made an impressive case for SWP consistency:
In 1979, they opposed the Soviet-backed progressive government in Afghanistan (which did more for women, girls and women’s rights there in 10 years than anyone else in 100) as it fought for its life against the imperialist-backed Mujahideen.
In 2008, they opposed Russian assistance to the Ossetians against imperialist-backed military aggression from pro-NATO Georgia.
In 2011, they supported the overthrow of Gaddafi by imperialist-backed forces whose final military victory was made possible by NATO military intervention.
And now, they support the overthrow of the progressive (when compared with most imperialist-backed regimes in the region) Assad regime in Syria as it faces Turkish and Saudi-armed rebels backed by US and British imperialism.
These positions go much further beyond legitimate criticism – condemnation even – of the Najibullah, Putin, Gaddafi and Assad regimes. They cross over into pro-imperialism.
Even so, the consistency is not total. The SWP’s contribution to the campaigns against imperialism’s recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was substantial. But, like Stuart, their anti-imperialism is stunted by the “state capitalism” nonsense and its overwhelming anti-Sovietism.
Nothing illustrates this better than their standpoint on the struggle in Afghanistan under Najibullah. To describe the Soviet intervention as “Russian imperialism” is anti-Communism gone mad. What were Russia’s “imperialist” interests there? Did they have any profit-bearing investments? Only in building clinics and schools, which I saw for myself. Did Russia have markets for commodities there? Ridiculous. Was it a source of cheap labour or raw materials for Soviet “state-capitalism” (where there were no capitalists)? No. Or has the term “imperialism” in its Marxist sense lost all meaning, as does “capitalism” in the state-capitalism thesis?
The vast majority of Afghan communists, socialists and progressives (especially women) welcomed Soviet assistance. The Soviet reasons for intervening in Afghanistan were murky in some respects to begin with (backing one faction of the PDPA against the other), but they were also aware of imperialism’s backing for Islamist terrorists and the feudal warlords. They stayed to defend the regime and the new system struggling to be born against the forces of reaction. That is clear from CPSU Politburo and Central Committee minutes and resolutions of the time, some of which have been translated into English and are available on the web (from US sites!).
So we had the warlords, the Mujahideen, Bin Laden, the Pentagon, the CIA and the SAS on one side … and a government of communists and anti-feudalist progressives on the other, backed by the Soviet Union.
What kind of “anti-imperialist” condemns both equally, or calls for the defeat of the latter?
“Progressive Assad regime” – says it all really.
# 389 Indeed
#387 Not very apt Andy.
Apart from anything else, Mark Anthony didn’t really mean it, did he?
If I was Stuart (or Martin Smith), I’d be thinking, ‘Infamy, infamy (they’ve all got in for me)’
#388 Its unclear that the SWP has supported the overthrow of any “progressive Assad regime” nor is the Assad regime progressive. Please try to restrict yourself to actual relaity rather than invention.
Morning Star reader,
You are correct in so far as Stuart is reaching back to an older deeper strand of think ing in the SWP.
However, we should not minimise the firmly antj- imperialist stance the S W took over Afghanistan and Iraq, and indeed. Whatever Styt says now the trusts in 2008. Was surprisingly anti US over Osstia.
Was it a firmly anti-imperialist stance, though? Even some of the imperialists weren’t keen on invading Iraq, notably the French government of the time. The mass protests against the Iraq war in early 2003 must have looked like a good recruiting opportunity to a group that is always looking for new recruits to keep the revolving door from turning into a haemorrhage. The size of pre-war (not war-time) demos, notably the big February 2003 one in London, must have been mouth-watering for any left group trying to recruit new members and sell publications. Actual anti-imperialism didn’t come into it (that was certainly the case for most of the anti-war marchers, who stopped marching after the war broke out).
In recent years, the SWP seems hardly to believe imperialism even exists.
The SWP’s anti-imperialism is not fully integrated into its revolutionism. It is a moot point whether that can ever be so given the wishful thinking rather than realism that the SWP tends to exude when it comes to ‘revolution’. Hence it tends to wobble from one position to another. It is not confined to the SWP btw. Counterfire did the same. Their position on Libya was identical to the SWP’s until pressure in the Stop the War movement forced them to come out unequivocally against intervention. The same was true over Syria. At the beginning of this year Counterfire was with the SWP in talking up the progressive possibilities of the rebels in Syria, who were looking to support from the West. That is from Western governments not Western ‘revolutionaries’.
One way that the leadership of the SWP copes with the stresses and strains of endless pragmatic shifts is through the internal regime. So now we find a wave of expulsions taking place in the run up to the annual show of democracy at the SWP conference. There is now a third crisis in five years in the SWP. Each one has left the leadership weaker and dummer. What I’m hearing now though is that there is greater resistance in the Matrix. There is growing support for the young people who have been expelled for raising criticisms of the internal regime and daring to outline an alternative path to the leadership.
A democratic revolt would not solve all the problems. It could create the culture though where a serious discussion could take place. It would be of benefit if that happened and the SWP ended up playing a more constructive role. I fear though that the inertia and rot is so deep that instead of that there will be yet more splits and rancour. But whatever happens, these issues are not going to go away. Far from it.
#394 – Counterfire certainly seem more disturbed than the SWP by the reactionary politics of the NATO-backed Syrians, and there appeared to be a line change that expressed that.
As I am no great fan of the Assad regime, I chose my words carefully and deliberately. I described it as progressive compared with the imperialist-backed regimes in the region. Is that being seriously disputed, or do Billj John Grimshaw put it on the same level as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Oman etc.
I haven’t “invented” SWP support for the overthrow of the Assad regime, John. Try looking at their website. Go, for example, to the report at http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27513 No other conclusion is possible than that the SWP supports the rebels to overthrow the government. All the attacks are on the regime, while the character of the opposition is largely whitewashed. The SWP line has been consistent ever since.
And it’s no good arguing that this report was carried earlier in the year. Communists in the Middle East have known about the reactionary elements in the opposition from the beginning.
Nor is it an excuse that the SWP wants victory for the rebels only by their own hand. If it happens, it will happen with substantial imperialist intervention, as some of us knew it always would. That’s the real world of the Middle East, not the invented one of fantasy revolutionists in Britain.
Agreed Andy, as I said, the SWP contribution to the Afghan and Iraq anti-war campaigns was excellent. I worked closely with many SWP friends and comrades in both. Most agreed that their party’s line on Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s had, in hindsight, been utterly wrong. They did not even try to defend it. I am sorry they are repeating some of those kinds of mistakes again.
My earlier post should be a response to #395, not #394.
Mark Victorystooge,
It certainly became more concerned. It was not at the beginning of this year. Counterfire resisted those in Stop the War who were arguing that it was necessary to highlight the actual intervention taking place. Instead, Rees and German argued that the focus should be upon the threat to Iran, and not the real intervention in Syria, which is a part of the long term targeting of Iran.
@394The size of pre-war (not war-time) demos, notably the big February 2003 one in London, must have been mouth-watering for any left group trying to recruit new members and sell publications.
The paradox is that they weren’t recruiting.
Mark Steel, in his book, talks of a slump in terms of recruitment during that time, with an anecdote about a fictional (and once thriving) branch being forced to meet around the corner pocket of a pub pool table.
Be careful what you wish for.
Marcus Antonius:
And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
Morning Star reader,
The Russian occupation and attempt at top-down state capitalism was disastrous for Afghanistan. It was not about progress it was about showing it was powerful enough to police its sphere of influence.
redscribe,
The fact that the CIA will have an interest in getting to Assange does not mean we should accept without question that rape and/or sexual assault may have occurred. We cannot IMO make that leap.
You clearly care enough to make what are made to sound like authoritative judgements about the SWP. If you cannot back them up with any actual evidence base why should any reasonable person believe a word you are saying? Or will casual ‘opinion’ suffice in your estimation?
Right kids, let’s think about wrapping this one up. You’ve feasted and feasted well, and we’ve found out that the SWP has yet again expelled people during the pre-conference period.
So, we end this thread much as we started it: Needing a shower.
stuart,
The western support for the so called mujahedeeen was also disastrous. You should look back on the discussion in the SWP at the time. There was an ongoing debate. Most people I recall from that period in the SWP were not particularly opposed to the Russian intervention. They honestly said they didn’t really know about Afghanistan. They also rightly focused on the US stationing missiles in Britain and heating up the second cold war.
@376The male friend who is from a a very wc background in East London cited the middle class attitudes of some SWP “seniors” for this belittling. A little odd for a supposed potential organisation of the WC.
It’s telling how the internal structure of these groups tends to replicate and mirror power relationships in wider ‘bourgeois’ society.
The irony is that the victims of bullying and/or sexism would have better legal rights, protections, and pathways to redress in even non-unionised private companies compared to the supposed vanguard party of the WC!
#397 It should be clear by now “Morining Star Reader” (is this realy necessary – I’m not MI5, but I suspect if they wanted to find us out they have already done so – hello whats that knock at the door?) that I’m not supportive of the SWP. However I do feel that we should be clear about what’s factual and whats ideologically based supposition.
1. I never assumed you were a great fan of the Assad regime and would not insult you by doing so.
2. Your assumption that the Assad regime is “progressive” in comparison with Qatar or Saudi is based on what exactly? That the regime is less likely to slaughter its own people in order to cling onto power?
3. As far as I can see the SWP has a nuanced view to the situation in Syria. They do support the overthrow of the Assad regime and in ordr to achieve this they support popular “rebels” who want to do it. They do not support the USA/UK or other imperialist interventionists. But as I am sure you would admit this is a complicated situation. Especially when none of us has absolutely any influence over whats going on. yes there are reactionary elements in the opposition but why not talk about the ones who aren’t? Of course the blowback from US polcy in Afghanistan and elsewhere has emboldened the “reactionaries” but make no mistake the US/UK imperialists actually don’t care. Whatever their manipulative propaganda at “home”.
As hjas been pointed out already, the situation is a mess.
Well Stuart (402), I think that the Western imperialist intervention in Afghanistan to support the warlord-jihadist alliance was the disaster that befell the people of Afghanistan. You think that protecting a regime that built clinics and schools and educated girls was the main problem. I guess that’s the difference between us.
Do you know anything at all about what happened in Aghanistan?
stuart,
Stuart is still not examining the evidence. That is the point. He obviously thinks it is a crime to do so, from the point of view of a kind of feminist ethics.
But its got nothing to do with the international class struggle, which the Assange case is a not unimportant event therein. This ‘ethics’ is useless to the working class because it puts you on the wrong side. With the CIA.
@404 If you cannot back them up with any actual evidence base why should any reasonable person believe a word you are saying?
stuart
You keep throwing around terms like ‘rumours’ and ‘gossip’ but surely you have to concede that if the same narrative about sexism and bullying keeps being repeated year after year, decade after decade by a whole plethora of people then there has to something in it.
This ‘three wise monkeys’ routine if yours in relation to Martin Smith is transparent.
Which goes back to the question asked hundreds of comments ago:
Why was Martin Smith removed?
Yes I remember discussing it with both Cliff and Hallas on seperate occasions; who were uncharacteristically relaxed about my support for the USSR in Afghanistan.
In private conversation, Hallas made the point that Afghanistan was a situation where it was so complicated that it was probably better to take no position; and Cliff said that because there was no working class in Afghanistan and the opposition to the USSR was not a national liberation movement, then socialists should not support the Mujhadin.
@413 Interesting Andy
I wonder what Cliff and Hallas would have thought of this (characteristically awful) review of the movie ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ by Jonathan Neale:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13936
especially this bare-faced howler:
“That has a lesson for today. If the left allies with the invader, the eventual resistance will hate the left. Feminism is now very weak in Afghanistan because in the 1980s Afghan feminist women supported the Russians and their violent occupation.”
Stuart
It is transparentlly obvious that the SWP’s position over Afghanistan and Iraq was of a differtent temper to their recent position over Libya and Iraq.
I can’t be bothered to wade through documents to establish something that is as plain to see as the nose on my face.
In 2000 and 2001 it would have been a perfectly reasonable position to take, as many on the international left did, that while far from perfect, General Dostum’s warlord polity and other forces in the Norther Allliance were more progresive than the regime in Kabul, and that Harmid Karzai was a good bloke, personally independent of Pakistan and the USA, and with progressive backers like Ahmed rashid; then supporting Western intervention would sweep the good guys into power in Afghanistan.
It is even arguable, that had the USA been prepared to invest a bit in establishing Karzai’s government, and had the USA not instead rearmed and refinanced the warlords, after already boosting the military charisma they depend upon; then the outcome post-Taliban could actually have been better; and that purely measured in Afghan domestic terms, the war could have had a good result; and had a stable Afghanisan resulted, then that would have had a good impact in Pakistan.
This is why some of the left in the region did not oppose the US intervention at the time. i.e, although i think that position was ultimateoly naive, it was more plausible than supporting the Free Syrian Army today.
The SWP did not take that position over Afghanistan, and opposed the Western intervention that allowed domestic Afghan forces to overthrow the Taliban government.
Yet today, the SWP is willy nilly callling for the overthrow of Assad, despite the fact that the revolt – fuelled by Western and Gulf states – is unleashing a maelstrom of sectarian violence, with the forces the SWP is supporting committing attrocities against Christians and Alawis (as the forces supported by the SWP committed pogroms against balcks in Libya); and the Syrian civil war is likely to result in chaos, as pro-Western and Jihadi forces in the opposition fight for the privilege of ruling over the ruins.
That is clearly a differnce of position
Jonatahan Neale at least demonstartes that the SWP is an equal opportunities employer
Thanks for that gem from Jonathan Neale, Jellytot (414): “Feminism is now very weak in Afghanistan because in the 1980s Afghan feminist women supported the Russians and their violent occupation”.
The quotation rather begs the question: why did Afghan women support the Najibullah government and Soviet assistance (or should that be “Russian imperialism”)?
Didn’t they realise that accepting ongoing servitude at the hands of feudal warlords and religious fundamentalists was their best bet? Stepping out of line can often get women a good slap, or from the 1980s Afghan “freedom fighters”, rape and public execution.
These feminists, eh? They just don’t know what’s good for them! They’re their own worst enemies etc.
Pass the sick bag. But least Neale openly shows his complete unfitness to be part of any kind of revolutionary leadership or its intelligentsia. Even worse was the silent abstentionism of the likes of Cliff and Hallas at the time (as indicated above) – so blinded by anti-Sovietism and anti-Communism that they would rather keep quiet than speak out in defence of Afghan progressives and communists, women, schoolteachers etc. So much for that brand of “anti-imperialism” and international solidarity, which Lindsey German and John Rees at least began to break from (although I don’t know if they would see it like that).
Tony said we’re finishing> So come on people you’ve got four minutes of Fergy time to make your final point. (Is that sexist)
This is also extraordinary, it is as if Jonathan neale, having spent a few weeks in Afghanistan in the 1970s feels he doesn’t have to find out anthng that has happened since, and can just pontificate based upon snippets he has picked up from the Guardian:
It is extraordinary that Neale makes no attempt to understand the dynamics or political ecomomy of Afghan society, divided as it is between rival warlord polities; nor does he seek to understand how the taliban had gradually and incrementally been winning a war against the warlords, who were seeing their military charisma suffering a secular decline into exhaustion, or how the US invasion re-armed and reinvigorated the warlord polities at the expense of central government; nor does Neale bother to get to grips with the role of Pakistan; or tribal, ethno-linguistic and religious differences.
(A word of caution though, Afghanistan became a failed state that descended into warlordism, onle becasue of the success of the US and Saudi backed war against the Afghan government and its Soviet ally. Warlords arose either as a result of growing areas of control in opposition to the state, or in the case of General Dostum, where part of the state’s own army became “orphaned” by the collapse of the state. We could further add the tragedy that Najibullah did latterlly show success in a peace process to absorb the warlords back into the Afghan state after the Red Army’s withdrawl,. but this was dependent upon subsidies from the USSR, which stopped when the CPSU lost power. The USA, having thrown Afghanistan into the Abyss did nottning to assist)
There is only for Neale an “Afghan people”, as if Afghanistan is a modern nation state like France or Spain.
Particularly of course, the US did not really “invade” in 2001, they instead armed and financed, and provided air support for war lords, (and indeed some of the Taliban’s own military forces flipping over) to depose the Taliban.
The subsequent introduction of US troops were there not to “occupy” Afghanistan, a task they were singularly uninterested in doing, but instead to hunt down Bin ladin and Al Qaeda.
The paradox is not that the USA occupied Afghanistan, but rather that they didn’t. Had they constituted themselves as an occupying power, assuming civil responsibility for the administration of Afghanistan, they would have put in place processes and institutions that would have developed the capacity of the Afghan state to rule the country.
Wha actually happened is that for two plus years after the overhtrow of the taliban, the US did almost nothing to build the capacity of ther Afghan state, its infrastructure or the forces at its disposal – which is why Karzai was acurately called the mayor of Kabul. Instead the US pursued their primary interests, which in Afghanistan itself meant pursuing a Quixotic hunt in the hiils, and by necessity they therefore collaborated and colluded with the reinvigorating of the warlord polities; and outsdie Afghanistan they shifted focus to Iraq.
the descent into chaos was therefore not so much due to foreign “occupation”, but due to the effective collapse of the state; allowing a rather pragmatic Taliban to not only gain ascendancy in the Pushtan areas, but also to pose as a credible alternative to karzai, who had the disadvantage of incumbancy, with no achievements to show for it, having been kept impotent by the Americans.
were we to follow Jonathan Nealle’s schoolboy account, we would think there was a national liberation movement fighting an occupier; in fact we have a deeply divided mosaic of competing polities jockeying for ascendancy, in which NATO has been sucked into the invidious position of trying to prop up an inherently unstable status quo. the “Taliban” merely becomes a portmanteau term for those who seek to remove Western military forces by feat of arms.
It also begs the question whether the fact that Afghan women political activists were massacred by the political forces that Jonathan neale supported may not have had a more direct impact on their lack of influence today.
For me the greater howler is:
“Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman, campaigned for giving the Afghans the missiles. By 1986 he had won the argument, and by 1988 the Afghan resistance had shot down 300 helicopters and planes and defeated the Russians.”
There is no sexism on the left and anyone who says otherwise is a Tory.
Martin Smith was finally removed from the CC list this year because his bullying and sexist behaviour towards a number of young women finally caught up with him.
Two years ago he was able to convince enough people in the SWP that in the interests of “The Party” they should stifle their disbelief, believe his version of events (consensual peer level relationship that just went awry) and carry on as normal.
But now there are more women alleging the same kind of behaviour, and suddenly it isn’t so easy to convince the sheep that he’s a good guy being done over by the enemies of “The Party”.
So now some of the CC, but not all, have decided he has to go. The problem is that the SWP are so entrenched into factional camps that anyone who raises even the most innocent and honest of questions is immediately attacked (even expelled).
Meanwhile their membership shrinks and they become more irrelevant.
Total Soviet helicopters losses
in Afghanistan 1979-1989: 333
year helicopters losses
1979 3
1980 39
1981 22
1982 33
1983 28
1984 49
1985 49
Total 223
1986 44
1987 49
1988 14
1989 3
Total 110
“Progressive Assad regime” and you chose your words carefully?
jim mclean,
That is bollocks Jim.
As the Scottish Play has now been dragged in, it is time to close comments before things really get out of hand.
[...] its Disputes Committee report that found that rape, harassment, and abuse charges against ousted Central Committee (CC) member Martin Smith to be “not proven.” This report was accepted by a razor-thin margin of 231 votes for, [...]