SWP: Mother of all splits looms

by Jim Tue Dec 09, 2008 15:14

The mainstream is laughing at the ridiculous Pythonesque infighting in leftist micro-groups.
Truly absurd.

by Albatrot Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:07

Because that never happens in the mainstream does it? Remind me again where FF, PD's, SF and FG, not to mention a large section of the modern Labour Party all have their roots. Oh yeah would it be the Green Hungarian Brigade? FF and FG are both right wing conservative parties with less difference than most left wing groups have between them, so why aren't they one party?

by BS Tue Dec 23, 2008 14:15

The following is a document written by a leading SWP member in Scotland and is central to the civil war which now rages in the SWP. The main theme laments the inability of the SWP to grow and build a cadre party. Severely criticises the leadership for the lack of democracy in the party, attacks Trotsky's support for and definition of the united front and instead defends the idea of popular frontism and its implementation by the SWP. Incredibly he also consistently quotes from the Stalinist Lukács as to how a revolutionary party should function and be built!

LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP AND DEMOCRACY IN THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY
by Neil Davidson
from SWP Pre-conference Internal Bulletin 2008. #3.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3179

by BS Tue Dec 23, 2008 14:25

As with all of these documents written by leading members of the SWP this one lacks any attempt at a real political analysis of why Respect failed, aside from blaming it on George Galloway, it defends the SWPs unprincipled alliance with right wing forces and also doesn't even attempt to politically analyse the current situation in Britain or globally.
It also graphically illustrates the deep divisions that exist in the CC of the SWP and that a major split is likely in the new year.

From SWP Pre-Conference Internal Bulletin #4,

Reply to Respect document, by Lindsey German

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3210

by BS Tue Dec 23, 2008 14:32

John Rees SWP leading member in Respect and the Stop The War Coalition is not included in the slate for the SWP CC for their conference in January. The "majority" of the CC are blaiming Rees for the failure of Respect but also for making major political compromises. The obvious question is what were the rest of the CC doing while all of this was going on? However according to the CC minority of 4, all decisions regarding Respect were taken collectively by the CC. This and other documents also highlight that the SWP have taken major donations from big business, not only from a company that was involved in privatisations and PFI but also from a subsidiary of Time Warner, the multinational media conglomerate that owns CNN!
Here John Rees tries to explain why he isn't the scapegoat for all of the SWPs woes.

WHERE WE STAND

by John Rees

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3169

by BS Tue Dec 23, 2008 15:04

Alex Callinicos, SWP CC member and the senior organiser of their international has written what is an incredible document that exposes how the SWP leadership has been amateurish, reckless and how they have shipwrecked their party. He explains how the SWP CC decided in 2000 to scrap their branches because they were getting in the way of their attempts to build alliances and popular fronts. German in her document states that the SWP claim to have 6,000 members but that only 10% of them, 600 are active. Rather than being the biggest "revolutionary party" in Britain as the Callinicos claims, this would rank them amongst the smaller of the left parties.

Callinicos says "It was the crisis in Respect that has fractured the Central Committee." He also admits what many outside of the SWP have been saying for years, that the SWP have politically moved to the right through their involvement in Respect. "It was always taken for granted comrades involved in leading united fronts (sic) would be under particular pressure to adapt to their reformist allies. The role of the Central Committee would be to support these comrades, but also to act as a counter-pressure to any tendency of rightward adaptation. This mechanism broke down in the case of Respect".

The crisis in the British SWP is not confined to its leadership but is now being discussed throughout its ranks.

Are these issues being discussed amongst the membership of the Irish SWP? Has a discussion begun about the Respect crisis and is the People Before Profit agenda of the Irish SWP leadership a repetition of this same mistake that the British SWP made? Are Richard Boyd Barrett and Brid Smith following in the footsteps of Rees and German, attempting to liquidate the SWP and to replace it with a broad based alliance ditching socialism along the way?

WHAT’S GOING ON - A REPLY TO JOHN REES

By Alex Callinicos, from SWP pre-confernce Internal Bulletin #4

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3209

by BS Tue Dec 23, 2008 15:10

"The crisis in the SWP is the most serious for many years", John Rees.

Here are two more documents written by Chris Harman and John Molyneux.

CHRIS HARMAN
Some comments on Neil Davidson’s document

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3180

A RESPONSE TO NEIL DAVIDSON AND JOHN REES

by John Molyneux

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3176

by sparky Tue Dec 23, 2008 19:51

If you google People Before Profit you will make an interesting discovery. In Ireland the People Before Profit website is http://www.people-before-profit.org/, but there is also a People Before Profit website in Britain, http://peoplebeforeprofit.wordpress.com/.

Two different People Before Profit organisations? No, it's easily explained. The SWP in Ireland have a front called People Before Profit and the SWP in Britain have a front called People Before Profit. The SWP claim that these PBP groups are free and independent alliances etc etc....

by Joseph Bloggs Wed Dec 31, 2008 13:23

After reading the papers from the British SWP leaders it is clear that People Before Profit is a major issue in the conflict between the CC members. The CC Majority do not believe that they can build People Before Profit as a united front. They argue that it is not possible to win others to supporting the idea of People Before Profit. This means that the majority leadership of the British SWP now have a different political orientation that the Irish SWP.

Will this result in a discussion and debate within the Irish SWP on their own People Before Profit project? Might it mean that in Ireland the SWP will downgrade their PBPA project and instead try to directly build the SWP? The majority leadership of the SWP are also turning away from electoral work. This is another major difference with the Irish SWP. Could this debate open up a split or division between the British and Irish SWPs? Or even a similar debate or even split within the Irish SWP?
Does anyone have any insight into what is going on?

by Fed up - BK Wed Dec 31, 2008 19:10

Its farcial that at a time when capitalism is in major crisis and the people of gaza are under siege that some clown is on here with a hard on wondering if within the narrow world of the micro left if there is a split in the irish swp/ between the irish and the british swp.
Some people here who might proport to be left wing actually care little for the working class and care more for the soap opera of a split.
Grow up.

by Dumb and blogers - none Wed Dec 31, 2008 19:38

Yes I can offer some insight.. you are brain dead. The People before Profit referred to in the internal, members only docs you read has nothing to do with the Irish PBP, it refers to a charter been used or not used by the swp in Britain around the recession. The other insight I have is that fed up is essentially right, stop this masturbateing and get out on the streets for the people of Gaza, and yes that means all you sp members!! Only joking, really.

by ! Wed Dec 31, 2008 20:55

get on the streets under the direction of the swp
thanks but no thanks

it's important to understand what's happening within the swp as they run the
protest fronts in ireland for their own ends when they arise
when someplace (like Palestine this week gets bombed)
..they'll drop the Palestinians like the dropped the Iraqis and Afghanis
when the capitaist media spotlight directs them to

the last posts are people who don't want you to think about how the protest scene works
they rather you don't think at all...just go to their demo, get your alloted swp placard and do what you're told

irish swp, like scottish swp, is a franchise run out of london
they have different marketing appoachesto their different catchments
...a lot of its got to do with the opportunities that arise
..they are if nothing else excellent opportunists

by Joseph Bloggs Fri Jan 02, 2009 13:37

I agree this is typical of the SWP. They always say, look whats happening in the world, we should focus on this and ignore the politics. That is exactly what your party did in Britain. They said look at the war in Iraq, we should focus on that and ignore the political issues about who we form alliances with and what we campaign for etc. Then ended up in the total mess that Respect became and now there is a major split in their party because in the aftermath of the Respect fiasco they have been forced to exam the political mistakes that were made. So you can choose to ignore these important political issues and instead blindly focus on activity about Iraq or Gaza but it is guaranteed that the political mistakes you make in the meantime will come back to haunt you and just like your comrades in Britain you will end up in a bloody mess.
But it can be different in Ireland. The membership should demand an open internal debate on the lessons of Respect and to be fully involved in discussing all of the issues that have split their sister party in Britain and how they affect you in Ireland with your own "united front" project People Before Profit.. Maybe if this open democratic discussion takes place you can learn from the mistakes of your comrades in Britain.

by curious - none Fri Jan 02, 2009 19:59

The Socialist Party could do with updating its website...rather than coming on here with the usual sectarian nonsense.

Did you notice capitalism is in a spot of bother and there's a crisis in Gaza. Not one word on socialist party website??

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Fri Jan 02, 2009 21:52

don't think there has been any post on this topic from a member of the SP - and the SP website was updated two days ago.

by Joseph Bloggs Sat Jan 03, 2009 22:26

This is more of it. The leadership of the SWPs line is, if anyone criticises the SWP then they are sectarian. Well Curious SWP member. Have you read the documents that are posted here from leading members of the British SWP? If you haven't well then you really should if you are at all serious. And if you have already then you can't have but noticed the criticism of what the SWP did with Respect and the Stop The War Coalition as well as many other things. These criticisms are from the majority of the leadership of the SWP. Are they being sectarian? What do you think of their criticisms? Never mind what is or isn't on websites. What do you think of the issues that have caused a major crises in your organisation?

by Joseph Bloggs watch - Bird watch Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:04

When you learn to read, (as from a previous post it is obvious that you either cannot read or cannot understand what is written,) prehaps we will take you seriously.In the meantime I suggest that like many sp members you stop wetting yourself with excitment at this stuff and support the citizens of Gaza.

by John Cornford Thu Jan 08, 2009 14:50

In the current issue of The Weekly Worker, James Turley analyses the developing crisis in the SWP and urges the Rank & File to fight back against the two CC factions.

The most obvious battleground so far has been in the Pre-conference bulletin - unofficially called the Internal Bulletin.The IBs amount to almost the only concession to internal democracy to be found in the SWP, open to extensive contributions from party members.

Apart from the two CC factions, a third force can be found in a number of prominent secondary cadre, most notably the historian Neil Davidson. Davidson penned two contributions to IB No3 - a sustained polemic in favour of more democracy, along with a motion in favour of the same.

The motion’s signatories will be a matter of some concern to both the CC factions: alongside Davidson, there is another noted academic in Colin Barker, best-selling fantasy author China Miéville, Unite executive member Ian Allinson and RMT political officer Unjum Mirza. None of the 16-strong signatory list is a ‘nobody’ in SWP terms.

by Gerry Downing Thu Jan 08, 2009 15:00

As an ex-Healyite, I have to say that the Socialist Workers’ Party’s impending split is a very welcome development. The first thing I recognised after the Workers Revolutionary Party’s 1985 split was that the WRP, the SWP and the Millies (Militant Tendency) had very similar internal regimes; these were guru-led organisations which had their origins in the Stalinist, third period dogmatism of ultra-leftist gesture politics.

If you could not really make a difference in crisis-driven political situations, you could certainly impress your membership with revolutionary-sounding blasts that substituted. And you could cover rightist retreats with shrill leftist verbiage, denouncing all those who listened to workers’ concerns in order to tune their programme to material reality as reformists.

Even though it is surely necessary to have a category of candidate membership to prevent the revolutionary theory of the organisation - manifestly at odds with prevailing bourgeois values and culture - from being swamped by a sudden intake of new members, no real democracy was permitted to lower layers of these organisations.

Some would contend with excellent reason that the International Socialists/SWP are not Trotskyists at all, but at least they are centrists of Trotskyist origins. Nonetheless, they are the last of the three main historical trends that emerged from British Trotskyism to face its soul-searching split. Since 1985, serious observers have been anticipating this event. It is good that, given the profound crisis of global capitalism, it should happen now.

In a way, the WRP was the most ‘theoretical’ of the three, as it had a formal type of orthodoxy that seemed revolutionary and it did teach its members classical Marxist theory at quite a high level. But its ultra-leftism was combined with an opportunist capitulation to the Arab bourgeoisie (the ridiculous ‘objectively developing world revolution’, which enabled Iraqi communists to be shot to allow its unfolding) and deals to be made with the reformist radical labour bureaucracies represented by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight, even if the former was clearly more opportunist than the latter.

The Millies emphasised theory also, but clearly at a less orthodox level. The Labour Party could never be transformed into a vehicle to introduce socialism via an enabling act, as they proposed in a reformist abandonment of a revolutionary perspective. The British army (even if you recruited them to a trade union) would shoot you as soon as you got your majority votes in parliament.

That is not to say that Healy was closer to the answer; in my view, the Thornett-Workers Socialist League split made the best contemporary attempt at elaborating a transitional programme of demands on labour leaders to educate a generation of fighters for their historic revolutionary tasks.

Significantly, the contemporaneous splits from the IS/SWP produced the most profound critiques of Trotskyist history. Workers Power, albeit with their own self-proclamatory sectarian outlook, became Trotskyist for a number of years under the influence of their first leader, Dave Hughes. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, as it was to become, degenerated into a third-campist, right-moving, pro-Zionist group, but subsequent splits, like the International Trotskyist Committee/Revolutionary Internationalist League (ITC/RIL) and later the Workers International League/Leninist Trotskyist Tendency (WIL/LTT), made significant efforts to assert the transitional method and relate to the mass reformist consciousness of the workers by something other than self-proclamation and attempting to build new reformist halfway house organisations themselves (where they might get a better hearing on the left, but which left ordinary workers unimpressed).

Of the three historical trends, the SWP survived so long because of its low level of theory; surely what was primarily wrong with Respect was its blatant popular frontism, its bland assumption that there was nothing wrong with making alliances with petty bourgeois forces like the Muslim Association of Britain in order to defeat war and fascism. Once you grovel in this milieu (one councillor actually joined the Tories), then class politics, let alone historically evolved revolutionary principles, are totally abandoned. In other words, the SWP survived so long because the theoretical level of the organisation and membership was so low that the ideological onslaught of neoliberalism went over their heads until crass opportunism turned to bite them in the rear.

Surely, this split will present anew a radical rethink in the middle layers and newer membership; if any long-term leaders do anything other than reassert some version of the past errors it will be an enormous surprise to me, given the experience of the WRP and the Millies splits.

by Reminder Tue Jan 13, 2009 15:03

The British SWP conference was last weekend. Lindsay German and Chris Nineham resigned from the Central Committee in support of John Rees who was being removed by the "majority" faction. The SWP no longer have any leading members in the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition. Another special conference is to be held in 6 months and in the run up to it there will be a new phase of the faction struggle with more documents to be written etc. The crisis continues and deepens....

by John Smithee Mon Jan 19, 2009 14:04

I agree with Gerry Downing’s analysis . The SWP’s impending split is a very welcome development. Gerry Downing is also right to say that the Workers Revolutionary Party, the SWP and the Militant Tendency were guru-led organisations based on ultra-leftist gesture politics.

As an ex-Grantite, I have to say that the Militant Tendency had what psychiatrists would describe as a ‘split personality’. On the one hand, Ted Grant’s organisation produced first-class and robust socialist parliamentarians such as Terry Fields, Pat Wall and Dave Nellist. On the other, it produced opportunists such as Tommy Sheridan and Derek Hatton - the latter now a wealthy estate agent and property developer based in Cyprus.

Perhaps the global downturn will produce new cadres of the calibre of Fields, Wall and Nellist. Only time will tell.

by John Cornford Mon Jan 19, 2009 14:10

Peter Manson reports on how John Rees, Lindsay German and Chris Nineham capitulated to the SWP CC majority.

The January 9-11 Socialist Workers Party conference - suspended for most of the Saturday to allow SWP comrades to participate in the big Gaza demonstration in London - resulted in complete victory for the central committee majority around Alex Callinicos and Martin Smith, while the minority of John Rees, Lindsey German and Chris Nineham beat a hasty retreat.

Two central committee slates were initially before conference, held at the South Camden Community School. The first, proposed by the 14-strong outgoing CC, consisted of ... the outgoing CC, minus John Rees: ie, 13 comrades. The alternative, proposed by the minority, sought to reinstate comrade Rees - in other words, the status quo ante.

However, before the Sunday morning debate on Respect, Lindsey German was given time to make an announcement. She declared that she and Chris Nineham had decided to withdraw their names from the CC slate. Simultaneously the alternative slate which included comrade Rees was also withdrawn.

by GF Tue Jan 20, 2009 14:25

On 8th December John Cornford posted:

"Lindsey German and John Rees have declared all out war on the SWP central committee majority. There can be only one winner in this fight. If Lindsey and John lose the battle then a split is likely. Peter Manson reports on this fight to the finish."

On 19th January John Cornford posted:

"Peter Manson reports on how John Rees, Lindsay German and Chris Nineham capitulated to the SWP CC majority."

I'll continue to enjoy the gossip in 'Workers Weekly', and know that there is usually some basis at the bottom of it, but for reliable information I'll look elsewhere than Peter Manson and John Cornford.

by John Cornford Tue Jan 20, 2009 14:34

It just shows how untrustworthy either side of SWP CC battle are. Lindsay and John knew they were going to be hammered so they retreated.

But all you are interested in doing is distracting attention from the fact that the SWP are in tatters abd are going the same way as the WRP.

by GF Wed Jan 21, 2009 16:31

How untrustworthy of both sides of the SWP to act differently from what 'Workers Weekly' reported would happen!

Far from wishing to distract from the fascinating developments in the British SWP I would draw attention to the Socialist Unity, Liam MacUaid, Splintered Sunrise, Marxsite, Socialist Renewal, New Zealand SW and Louis Proyect sites etc. for information and insights.

by John Cornford Wed Jan 21, 2009 19:02

The fact remains that: there is split in the SWP leadership; the SWP is in tatters. No amount of silliness on your part will change this.

Thousands of SWP members have voted with their feet and have left the SWP. One SWP member who was a councillor in Tower Hamlets even joined the Tories!

by GF Thu Jan 22, 2009 15:20

I know this...a split in the (British) SWP leadershp. And a crisis in the SWP. Whether the SWP is 'in tatters' remains to be seen, and may well turn out to be more WW hyperbole.

The silliness is - and this was the purpose of the comment, not some imagined defence of the SWP - in breathless reports of 'war to the finish' and 'The Mother of All Splits'. So far they have turned out like Saddam Hussein's Mother of All Battles.

by John Cornford Thu Jan 22, 2009 15:54

Fool yourself if you want but no one else will be taken in.

Lindsay and John were leading the SWP a few months ago. Now they are non-entities as far as the ruling CC junta are concerned. The Respect project has resulted in the SWP losing over a thousand members. Members have even deserted to the Tories.

Dream on GF.

by GF Thu Jan 22, 2009 18:20

What am I fooling myself about?

All this I know. Except that I don't know that it was a thousand members who left the SWP over the Respect debacle. Maybe it was. I would like to see a source for this figure. No doubts at all that many left.

And here's another reliable source of information on the British SWP; impecable insider stuff from a member with three decades service who left around the Respect debacle, and a great sane and popular book on the political situation in general (though written pre-slump): 'What's Going On' by Mark Steel (2008).

"CC junta". Now that IS silly.

You can have the last word John. This correspondence is pointless beyond this point.

by Tom Tom Thu Jan 22, 2009 19:09

In the pre-conference documents the message comes through loud and clear that the SWP has hemmoraged members since the collapse of Respect. Lindsey German in her pre-conference document says that there are approximately 600 active members in the British SWP. If this figure is correct, then it means that the British SWP is in a major crisis and that thousands have either left them or become inactive as a consenquence of the poitical and strategic mistakes of their leadership.