Phil Gasper member of the editorial board of the International Socialist Review and is editor of The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History’s Most Important Political Document continues a discussion on Leninism, responding to a recent article from Ian Birchall.
What, if anything, do revolutionary socialists today have to learn from the experience and legacy of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks a century ago? In a recent thought-provoking article on this topic, Ian Birchall argues: “the term ‘Leninism’ may be a positive obstacle to developing the kind of political strategy and organisation we need for the coming decades.”
As Ian notes, the key question is not whether we should use the label ‘Leninism,’ but whether there is a coherent body of ideas in Lenin’s writings, and in the theory and practice of the Bolsheviks, that socialists can usefully draw on in the twenty-first century. But he seems to take the fact that “Lenin’s party varied enormously in form according to circumstances,” as a reason to conclude that with respect to questions of organisation, the answer should be in the negative.
It is undeniable that the Bolsheviks changed their organisation in response to specific historical circumstances. The way they operated before 1905, under conditions of extreme Tsarist repression, was very different from the revolutionary period of 1905-07. The years of reaction after 1907 were very different from the early years of the Russian Revolution, which were different again from the period after the Civil War.
In 1921, Lenin helped prepare theses on “The Organisational Structure of the Communist Parties, the Methods and Content of Their Work” for the Third Congress of the Communist International, which explicitly state: “There is no absolute form of organisation which is correct for the Communist Parties at all times… [E]ach Party must develop its own special forms of organisation to meet the historically determined conditions within the country.”
Nevertheless, while there is no cookie-cutter Leninist model of revolutionary organisation, good for all times and all places, there is what we might call a more general Leninist project that involves a commitment to build a disciplined, centralised revolutionary party based on the most militant, class conscious and politically advanced section of the working class.
That project stands in opposition to the “common sense” of many – probably most – on the activist left, who reject the need for a centralised party, or the role of the working class, or both.
There are two main reasons why we need a revolutionary party if we want to see a socialist revolution. The first is quite practical: without a coordinated, disciplined revolutionary organization, it’s impossible to take on and defeat the power of the capitalist state.
Although there is no discussion of revolutionary organisation in State and Revolution, which Ian praises as Lenin’s most important theoretical contribution, this is surely one of the implications of his analysis of the class character of the state and its role in maintaining the capitalist system and the rule of the capitalist class.
Like clockwork, capitalism provokes acts of resistance, large and small. But without coordination and leadership, the resistance can’t defeat the whole system. In Trotsky’s memorable metaphor: “Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box.”
The second reason why a revolutionary party is necessary is because of the highly uneven development of class-consciousness in the working class. Revolutionary organisation is needed to combat ruling class ideology and to overcome divisions between workers.
As we’re all too well aware, for most of the time revolutionary socialists are a small minority in capitalist society. But if the most class conscious, militant and politically advanced elements of the working class can be united in a revolutionary organisation, they can play a leadership role that in times of political and social crisis can attract much greater numbers.
That means revolutionary organisations have to play two related roles. One is participating in and, whenever possible, initiating struggles, both large and small. The second is the role of educating and training more socialists, while developing socialist theory to understand and explain a rapidly changing world.
Socialists have to spend years patiently engaging in smaller struggles, both to learn how to lead as individuals in their own workplaces and communities, and to build a party with the capacity to lead a successful revolution in the future.
That’s the Leninist project.
It’s important to emphasise that this is a project. We don’t have a revolutionary party consisting of the most advanced elements of the working class in Britain or the United States, and we’re unlikely to have one in the near future.
The main reason for this is that our side has suffered over 30 years of defeats. Moreover, the structure of capitalism and the composition of the working class have been transformed during that time. Whole industries have been wiped out or totally restructured. Unionised jobs have been replaced by low-wage service sector employment and contingent labour. And for 30 years there has been a right-wing ideological offensive that has disoriented and weakened most of the left.
The Leninist project involves bringing together the ideas of revolutionary socialism with the most advanced sections of the working class. When the socialist movement and the larger working class movement are both weak, that’s hard to do.
One of the biggest mistakes that relatively small groups of revolutionaries can make is to believe that they already constitute a revolutionary party, or that they will inevitably grow to become such a party. In his 1971 essay “Towards a Revolutionary Socialist Party,” Duncan Hallas, with his customary insight, put it this way:
“The relevance of a party is, firstly, that it can give … the more advanced and conscious minority of workers and not the sects or self-proclaimed leaders, the confidence and the cohesion necessary to carry the mass with them. It follows that there can be no talk of a party that does not include this minority as one of its major components.”
If you imagine that you have already created such a party, or that your political clarity and understanding means that you are preordained to become the leadership of the international working class in the future, it can rapidly lead to delusions of grandeur that may undermine the democratic culture that is an essential part of living revolutionary organisation.
Hallas again:
“unless, in its internal life, vigorous controversy is the rule and various tendencies and shades of opinion are represented, a socialist party cannot rise above the level of a sect. Internal democracy is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to the relationship between party members and those amongst whom they work.”
Here, Hallas is echoing ideas that Lenin articulated at the beginning of the twentieth century: “there must be wide and free discussion of Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment of events in Party life.” To that end the Bolsheviks explicitly defended the right of a minority “to advocate its views and to carry on an ideological struggle, so long as the disputes and differences do not lead to disorganisation.”
But while it is a serious error for any group of revolutionaries simply to declare themselves the leadership of the working class, the opposite mistake is to put off the task of building a revolutionary party into the indefinite future. Education is vital, but revolutionary socialists need to create more than just study groups. Activism is equally vital, but movements by themselves are not enough.
So how does a group of a few hundred people attempt to build a revolutionary party that will eventually need hundreds of thousands of members? It’s unlikely that we are going to grow ourselves there by recruiting a few members at a time. Most likely, the path will involve merging with other forces that are part of the working-class movement and the left, broadly conceived, but the specifics will vary greatly depending on the concrete situation that exists in different places and countries.
Ian Birchall is right that socialists today still have much to learn from Lenin’s writings. But to change the world, we also need to remain committed to the Leninist project of building a revolutionary party. In that sense we should say yes both to Lenin and to Leninism.
Am I missing something here? I’m telling you that there WERE alternatives to what the SWP did. Then you are telling me there WERE alternatives to what the SWP did. Then I am saying the point however is why NONE of those alternatives were used and what was used was WORSE.
could you put up a link for a marxist analysis of Savile, Hall or Smith. NOT Rotherham.
Concerning Savile, Rotherham etc. there has been a “marxist” analysis of why this occurred. Have you read any of the numerous articles about these issues?
Concerning the way the case was handled, instead of generalising about how other organisations deal with these allegations so much better give concrete examples. The whole point of getting this right in future is about learning from others so if you’re claiming that some kind of arbitration service involving counselling is necessary then what is this and how would it work in practice? I’ve never heard of any organisation using that method to handle allegations of rape against a member of staff, including the NHS. Rape Crisis is a counselling and support service that exists in England and Wales but is an independent organisation. Any organisation can refer to them and individuals can refer themselves.
In cases of suspected child abuse, domestic violence, self harm, allegations of rape, drug use among service users in the NHS there is a statutory responsibility to refer the case to other agencies such as social services and the police. In each case the decision is made by the team providing the care. These organisations are then supposed to work together to develop a joint care plan that is not only in the interests of the service user but also their partners and dependants who might be at risk.
That is a concrete example of how one organisation handles complex cases such as allegations of rape. This way of working is not used by all organisations including trade unions and political parties when handling allegations of rape. The point I’m making is that a disputes process can take many forms and unless there’s a clear idea about why certain procedures are being implemented rather than being based on the wild generalisations of one individual on a blog then the flaws in that process will just be perpetuated in a different form.
‘case’ not ‘cast’ re ‘facts of the case’ …apols
I repeat, I am not going to get into the no platform debate on this thread. Start a new thread on that.
There really is no need to sound so incredulous about how the SWP could and should have behaved. Hundreds of institutions and organisations knew prior to the events in the SWP how to behave and to behave better than they did. I have heard of circumstances where independent mediation was helpful. Unlike the anonymous Ray, I don’t know the ‘facts’ of the cast’ (!). In some circumstances – GIVEN THAT THE ACCUSED WAS SUSPENDED – an outside mediation can sometimes…sometimes…sometimes resolve aspects of a case. I have no idea why you’re being so simplistic as to think this is about apportioning guilt and the rest. Surely I don’t need to spell out circumstances where two people can with safety and assurance resolve certain kinds of dispute so that both parties feel the matter is resolved???!!!! What strange sheltered life have you and your pals been living in where you cannot imagine or conceive of such a thing?! Why do you imagine that somehow the SWP is some kind of lone, pioneering organisation trying to figure this thing out? Thousands of people all over the world do this sort of thing better than you guys did it. I repeat, what you can’t and won’t address is the SWP chose not to do what other organisations have been doing for years. That’s the real politics.
If procedures worked out by people wiser than a tiny left organisation could muster had been followed, the organisation could have emerged with credit and trust. Instead your organisation was arrogant enough to think it could do better. Where’s the analysis on why it thought it could?
Instead, you pose alternatives (as always) as if they are the only alternatives. They weren’t then. And they aren’t now. Trying to pin me to the logic of your alternatives really is pointless. The alternatives were available to the SWP at the time. You need to figure out why they couldn’t and wouldn’t use them. The outcomes if those alternatives had been pursued can’t be predicted for the simple reason – as any analysis of oppression should tell you – because the accusers didn’t feel (in the jargon) ‘safe’ or ‘contained’ by the organisation. That’s because the accused was protected by the organisation by not suspending him. I suggest that rather than talking to me about it, coming up with hypotheticals, you could look at a book on the subject, written by people who’ve tried finding decent ways of handling these matters for years. Then you could try to figure out – given that this information has been around for decades – why it is that your organisation refused to use this expertise. You could even write an article on it as a service to your own organisation.
It really is staggering reading you and others floundering around in an area which has decades of professional experience, trying to second guess what could or would or should have happened. Face up to it: marxist leninists don’t know everything about everything. What’s more, when they get together in organisations – guess what – they behave like a lot of other people behave in organisations – particularly when it comes to protecting its senior members.
The issue of no platformi is raised not because I think you are in favour of it but this is what is being proposed and the current context. If you think it is an absolute principle that socialists never ever go to the courts in any circumstances then you should outline the reasons. I think I cited before SP members going to court re expulsion from UNISON and being called racists. Now that is a hard decision and should not be taken lightly and if it was such an outrageous breach of socialist principle perhaps you could give us your reasons in that case. When lies are told repeatedly about an organisation and the organisation telling those lies are going to use them to ban you what the hell do you do? Perhaps at least some of your fire should be against people banning a socialist organisation?
Onto the more substantive point. You say outside organisation could mediate. It would be useful if you are more concrete. Do you mean an outside organisation would make a judgement on guilt or innocence? Would any outside organisation get involved in a dispute over the internal matters of the SWP or any other political organisation for that matter? I know of none which would entertain such an idea. You mention counselling, how does this for an organisation get to a conclusion. My understanding of counselling is completely different to that envisaged by yourself. What counselling service would take this sort of work? Again I know of no counselling service that would in effect adjudequate on internal matters of theSWP.. Your view really amounts to if the person doesn’t go to the police then no action should be taken. Just imagine if theSWP had done that! Now, the issue about suspension is I would suggest accepted by the SWP as a mistake in the procedures, it was said the accused was suspended from paid work for the party but would agree with you it should have been from membership. If, god forbid, anything like this was to happen again the suspension from membership would be the course that would be taken. I am not saying the procedure were ok they were flawed. That however is very very different to saying there was a cover up etc. I mention Stack because he was the chair of the disputes cttee and has left the organisation and set up rs21 etc where some members call the SWP rape apologists etc and am just highlighting that he played a pivotal role in the procedure and was like everyone else I suspect struggling to get to grips with such a difficult situation. Stack did not argue for his suspension and therefore was like everybody else working with flawed procedures etc. it was a mistake and would not happen again.
I don’t know why you keep quoting Pat Stack at me. A better point of reference – and much more relevant to this whole matter – is how, prior to the crisis – were trade unions, schools, hospitals, social work workplaces etc handling disputes like this? I say that, because why would or should a socialist organisation think that it could or should have had a procedure different from these? And – in my ongoing search for theory on the matter – why or how would a political party think that it should have had a procedure that is different? And, then, having got rid of that old (bad) procedure, why would it think, simply bringing in a new procedure that is the ‘explanation’ of what was wrong? why would I, or anyone else, trust an organisation purely on the basis that it had changed its procedures, without explaining why or how it got them wrong and why the needed changing…and not in some ‘procedural’ way, but with the same kind of approach it applies to other institutions in society.
re ‘wait and see’ – yes, indeed, if ultimately, a person doesn’t follow up the allegation – whether that be through the police, or through some kind of mediated counselling INDEPENDENT of the institution or organisation – then there is nothing that can or should be done. There is no allegation. Just because the complainant wants the organisation to investigate, it doesn’t follow that the organisation has to! So, if there is no case, the suspended person is reinstated. But you can only do that if the accuser is taken sufficiently seriously in the first place by suspending the accused. That didn’t happen. He went on working in the affiliated organisations like LMHR. What is mind-boggling, is that the party behaved as if it had never heard of ‘suspension’ in such cases! Why did it behave like that? As individuals, some of the people involved have worked in organisations where ‘suspension’ would be a matter of course. Something went on in their heads which led them to think that in this case, in this situation, in this organisation, ‘suspension’ wouldn’t be necessary. What ideological/political/structural forces led them to think that?
re structure of the party and whether this is part of the problem – I have seen no ‘official’ analysis that looks to see if there was even the possibility that a structure which perpetuates the top ranks of the party, and/or perpetuates the role of full-timers, was in any way part of why the organisation could not investigate itself or criticise one of its prominent members. In concrete terms that’s about the ‘slate’ system, and it’s about the percentages of full-timers in elected positions. (see Minority Report of CPGB 1957 for exactly these two questions.)
re the apology. The problem with the apology was that it was Dreyfus-like. I haven’t got the wording in front of me but the apologising was equalised to all parties concerned. But as the handling of the matter as regards the complainants was not good enough, and because, according to the organisation’s own account of how oppression works in society, equalising the matter is itself oppressive i.e. part of the problem not part of the solution.
re the coverage of Savile, Hall, Cyril Smith etc – I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to say that it wasn’t reported on. I meant that there hasn’t been the customary marxist analysis of how or why such things happen. These incidents involve individuals with a power and celebrity within institutions. (Rotherham is a different matter). There have been accounts of police cover-ups and institutional ‘looking the other way’ etc. but that’s not a structural ‘explanation’ that we would have seen in the past. I would suggest that a marxist analysis of power and celebrity in such matters would enable the party to throw some light on how it got itself into such a pickle itself on this very same matter.
re the no platforming – again, I have no idea why this keeps coming up in a conversation with me. I didn’t defend no platforming. Nor did Dave Renton in the original article. That was querying why Charlie Kimber had, it was alleged, threatened students with ‘libel’ action. We can ask then, is it appropriate for the left to threaten other parts of the left with legal action? See Dave’s article on that. If you want to start a thread here about the issue of ‘no platforming’ then why not offer it to rs21’s editors?
Concerning the claim that SW hasn’t reported the Savile case or other cases of abuse, a search of SW shows that there are articles about Savile in 2012, 2013 and 2014. SW also reported about Stuart Hall and Cyril Smith. The Rotherham case has also been covered extensively in SW recently and there’s an article about it in this months Review. There’s been an extensive debate in the ISJ about women’s oppression and the way the allegations were handled. It’s one thing to argue that we need more debate about these issues but it’s wrong to claim these issues are avoided.
Concerning the Disputes Committee. After the Respect fall out in 2009 the SWP party conference arranged a Democracy Commission to review all its structures. One of these structures was the Disputes Committee. This was an opportunity for all the membership to recommend changes to the way these structures function. The Democracy Commission report stated that:
“The DC has undertaken a substantial survey of grassroots opinion in the party, receiving many written submissions from comrades and visiting every district (where possible with two of its members) to listen to members’ opinions.”
The changes to the Dispute Committee were part of a range of changes to party structures agreed at conference at the time. In hindsight, how to handle allegations of rape or abuse and how the disputes process against a leading member should be handled should have been discussed but unfortunately this didn’t happen.
I don’t believe anyone at that time could have envisaged an allegation of this kind against a leading member and on that basis this oversight occurred. I don’t believe this oversight occurred for malicious reasons nor was it a deliberate attempt to minimise or conceal such an allegation if it should occur.
When allegations were made against a leading member some comrades at the time argued that the CC should have introduced special measures for dealing with this case. But this would have meant arbitrarily changing the disputes process without consulting the membership. The whole purpose of having a Democracy Commission was to implement members recommendations and make the CC more accountable not allow them to act autonomously.
Subsequently, after a lot of debate involving all members, changes have now been made to the disputes process – many of them recommendations made by those highly critical of the CC and the way the case was handled. The Democracy Commission was meant to address the potential fallibilities of the CC but it’s also revealed that the membership aren’t infallible either.
If there’s one prediction I can make it’s that the SWP will make mistakes in the future just as it has done in the past. Whether this is related to strategy, internal structures or other issues that there’s no way of predicting right now. I think making mistakes is part of the “Leninist” tradition not an aberration as the Stalinists would have us believe.
Well the point about suspending the accused is a correct point in my view and now one of the changes made. So that criticism of the procedures is accepted. Stack never argued for this at the time and he was chair of the disputes cttee. At the conference those highly critical of the Disputes cttee stated that Stack had offered support and was praised by those close to the person making the allegation. Stack of course was acting in that supportive manner as the chair of the disputes cttee, so the accusation of no support is a debatable one. Stack outlined the support offered and how that was responded to by the person making the allegation.
The more serious dilemma comes in points c and d.
You say in point c wait and see..but wait and see for what? To see if the person making the allegation goes to the police? Well the point I raised is what, as in this case, the person making the allegation does not for understandable reasons go to the police. It seems the procedure you would have, is to say well we have waited to see what happened and no police action therefore the person accused is therefore a member as any other. So in fact a very serious accusation would see the person accused retain membership of the organisation with any hearing of any sort. This seems to me highly unsatisfactory. How in that method do we know there is no case to answer. Michaels point was that the SWP was fundamentally wrong in convening its dispute cttee in the first place. My view is that there is no easy answer for any organisation when the accusation is so serious. Were the procedures which were in place adequate,clearly not, did it have major pitfalls, yes it did. Therefore a thorough going review took place where all members had ample time and opportunity to contribute. The apology for the shortcomings of the procedure is criticised by Michael but then he would no doubt be even more critical if the organisation didn’t make an apology.
There is an interesting point however in terms of the context in the colleges. The moves to ban the SWP will not simply stay with the SWP. It will lead to attacks on Muslim students, pro Palestinian students etc etc. so what ever the disagreements Michael has and they are clearly very deep etc. the idea that banning a revolutionary organisation which is central to the anti fascist and anti racist movement in today’s world is a dreadful error. Maybe Michael will say SWP member have no right for the rest of their lives to argue a strategy or tactic is a mistake on any issue because of the procedure of the disputes cttee. Lastly, take the point about left unity, genuine misunderstanding.
By the way Russell Brand’s ‘Revolution’ is at number 2 on amazon.
ps anonymous James I’m not in Left Unity. That’s twice I’ve pointed this out on this thread.
anonymous Ray is now getting so tied up with his own personal problems about status and authority, I’ll leave him to stew in his own shite. anonymous james, i fully understand your need to smokescreen your need to be anonymous. That’s your problem not mine.
re the SWP procedures. Hundreds of people sympathetic to the SWP said at the time that organisations like Trade Unions do things like a) suspend the accused and b) offer help and support to the accuser. c) then wait and see. d) Yes, if there is no further case to answer, the accused usually comes back.
We don’t actually know what might have happened if this elementary system of justice had taken place because it didn’t take place!
Instead, we do know that an utterly inappropriate investigation did take place.
If you know of a link which points to a marxist explanation for why a marxist organisation which had a special expertise in the oppression of women could end up with an oppressive system of investigating a rape allegation, please give it.
I am not speaking for the whole organisation. How do we know George is not a member of an organisation..your objection to anon postings was, it appeared in principle, so citing trade unions etc but it appears if you criticise the SWP then you are ok to do it anonymously.
Yes Michael, the procedures were not up to the kind of issue as this. Now, what if the procedures were changed without debate and conference agreeing them..and let’s say the outcome was the same..what would you be saying about that? You would be saying the SWP changed the procedures without debate and they are to be condemned. As I stated in my earlier posting Stack never once argued and I have not heard him argue since that the disputes cttee should not have heard the case. Is he arrogant? He is full of himself? Etc etc. Stack said that after the first complaint the person making the allegation left the SWP and then rejoined around 1 so the accusation peddled by Walker and some in rs21 that she was ordered not to go to the police is clearly complete bullshit.
There are people in rs21 where you regularly post who think like you, that the SWP shouldn’t have heard the case. Let’s take this as what should have happened. The allegation is made, the person does not want to go to the police. The allegation is not heard so does the organisation..
1. Expel the person without any hearing or ability to answer what they are being accused of? Therefore having an allegation made is sufficient for expulsion, does this apply to other accusations?
2 not expel the person and say to the person making the allegation, we will not do anything so you need to go to the police and if you choose not to then there will be no response from the organisation. We all are aware that many people for good reason do not want the police involved in their life etc.
I would like to know what Michael would suggest. What would happen in his organisation left unity?
The analysis is out there but you just don’t agree with it celebrity Michael. Perhaps it’s beyond your ken, but it’s pretty easy to distinguish between nonsense like, the SWP covered up 9 rapes and hacked email accounts and factual information. If you’re arguing that it’s all relative then that’s the kind of “shit” I think is irresponsible. For example, I make no apologies for disregarding the ultra sectarian CPGB account because their role is to intervene in any dispute on the left to exacerbate division. Meanwhile you pompously pose as judge and jury over anyone who disagrees with you but admit you don’t know all the facts. Eat a little humble pie why don’t you?
I think I should put the last more concretely: if the party thought that it was necessary to change the discipline procedures, why were they wrong in the first place? where is the analysis that explains how this could have come about?
The difference between anonymous George and the anonymouses Ray and James is that aG doesn’t appear to be speaking for anyone else other than himself. You two appear to be speaking for a whole organisation – another reason why your anonymity is so laughable.
Now to the substance: your ability to throw smokescreens and diffuse everything into unknown unknowns is masterful. Why you think I or anyone else should care about your smokescreen, I don’t know. My position from the start was that my trust in an organisation of which I was a willing sympathiser was shattered by a) its arrogance in thinking that it had the knowhow, personnel and right to ‘investigate’ this matter b) that it thought that it had the right procedures with which to deal with accuser and accused c) that it could not be open and honest with all-comers in giving an account of what happened nor give a marxist explanation of how it did happen d) that it thought that its ‘apology’ to all was a proper way of responding to the complainants.
Meanwhlie anonymous Ray walks about talking portentously of the ‘facts of the case’ as if he knows what they are! And anonymous James plays the ‘we did our best’ card when it’s quite clear to everyone on the outside that either the best wasn’t good enough, or that once it was clear that the best wasn’t good enough, the organisation didn’t have the will or the principle to explain how such an organisation could find that its best wasn’t good enough.
But doesn’t this apply to anonymous George then who claims above to know who was guilty etc…but you didn’t reply to that. There were some who left the SWP who thought the police should have been called ..this was despite the person not wanting to. Of course the person could still go to the police as she could have at any time, she chose not to as is her absolute right. There were some who said the accused was guilty because all accusations of rape are true which in effect would mean no disputes cttee was needed and straight expulsion, there were some who said the SWP should just not hear the allegation…now none of this is straight forward. But to pretend there was an easy answer is to ignore the different responses from those who left the organisation. The statement by tom walker that he thought it was likely that she was told not to go to the police has no basis what’s so ever…this of course has been confirmed by Stack who chaired the cttee and at no time during this period argued for the disputes cttee to be abandoned, he clearly thought that it should hear the accusation…but still it does the rounds as if it was fact when it blatantly isn’t .
wow – so not only did the SWP have revolutionary justice systems above and beyond bourgeois justice, anonymous Ray knows ‘the facts of the case’! Amazing! He knows the woman/women involved? He knows Delta? He was there? He knows the ‘facts’? Delusion heaped on delusion. On this basis I am looking forward to lengthy marxist analyses in SW of the various celebrity sex offences that hit the headlines…oh whoops, they’ve already come and gone without comment….now why would that be….? hmmmm
“Shit” did indeed get spread over the internet. Too bad the facts of the case didn’t get the same level of publicity. Whether no platforming socialists is based on “shit” or not that still doesn’t legitimise it.
er…the ban on SWP arose because of the way the SWP handled the allegation. That’s why it’s relevant. But though you can pass exclusions of topics as a motion in an organisation when you’re not anonymous in your own organisation you can do fuckall about it when it comes to the internet….which as we know is how the shit escaped in the first place. Yes, people disagree with how it was handled. Of course….er…that’s tautology. That’s why it resulted in disagreement and dispute….Jeez, Lenin you ain’t.
There were a number of different positions inside and outside the SWP on how to deal with the allegation of rape. Some comrades believed the disputes committee should not be involved, suggesting various ways of handling it such as referring cases like this to the police. Others believed that failures occurred because the disputes committee wasn’t robust enough to deal with it fairly for a variety of reasons. Others blamed the CC for a cover up. Others appeared to believe that any inquiry into such an allegation is prejudiced against the complainant.
There wasn’t a single position on this issue at the time and comrades on all sides spent a lot of time, effort and anguish over trying to work this out. Claiming that the solution to this issue simply required the approach Michael suggests disregards that whole process of debate regardless of how contentious it was. Many still don’t think it was resolved effectively while at the same time disagreeing with Michael’s conclusion. I don’t think it’s helpful using this debate as a vehicle for questioning the integrity of those involved.
Anonymous James, for some of us the political issue is not whether someone was or was not guilty but the idiocy that a so-called revolutionary organisation thought that it could and should deliver a verdict on this matter. What Pat thinks or thought is again spectacularly beside the point. It’s the pumped up, self-elevated, arrogant view that a bunch of politicos could decide on this matter! With integrity, some of those who did at first think they could, now think they shouldn’t have.Others, like anonymous James, go on and on pumping themselves up on this shit.
re Marxism anonymous Ray. I can remember the chair on many occasions asking people to identify themselves. Don’t worry about it, you’re anonymous.
People who get up from the floor at Marxism, Historical Matrialism (and other forums), public meetings etc. etc. don’t always identify themselves and not everyone knows each other at these meetings especially as we’re not all part of a “published” elite. So I say three cheers for the “anonymous” masses and more power to your arms. We know who we are even if Michael doesn’t!
Pat Stack founder member of rs21 said that in his view and he was on the disputes panel that even if all the allegations were true he was of the opinion it did not amount to rape. Of course this does not stop members of RS 21 putting round the rapist and rape apologist label because they know it is very damaging. You seem to have more information than Mr Stack because you claim to know the accusation of rape is true…perhaps you should discuss your great knowledge of the details of the case with Mr Stack who clearly thinks you are wrong. repeat..Mr Stack said at the conference in his view it did not amount to rape. Now, so no one goes off the deep end..the allegation is and was very serious and Stack also said he was of the view that t was conduct unbecoming of a leading member of the SWP. Now that is serious but it is not the same as Rape. It went to the procedure the SWP had at the time..that procedure was flawed hence the significant changes made..remember Stack and others voted for the changes at the last conference they were at and Stack did not if my recollection is accurate make any suggestions for additional changes..but may be wrong..none the less you seem to have more information than the then chair of the disputes cttee who sat through and heard the evidence etc. Stack did not argue for any changes to the procedure at the time of the investigation. So speak to him and tell him why he got it wrong with your certain knowledge of truth and fact. Of course Mr Stack may not be safe to be around and be banned with everyone else.
James, the thing is you can oppose the ban on the SWP whilst thinking that the use of the law against a student newspaper publishing is a terrible abandonment of socialist principles.
And as for lies, well quite a lot of us happen to know that the allegations against Smith were true. The CC covered up what he did for two years, did nothing to those that bullied and harrassed the complainant, expelled those that tried to get justice for the complainant and lied and lied, engaged in distortion after distortion to save their pathetic hides. Its quite understandable that people don’t want them around – and quite frankly the SWP – packed as it is by Smith loyalists and an utter unprincipled leadership – is patently not a safe space and I would be very worried for people getting involved in the organisation without knowledge of whats happened.
Equating the mistakes of the swp with allowing hitler to come to power…really Michael, get a sense of perspective. Have a look around Europe and the rise of the far right!
The avatar Anonymous Ray finds that satire is not his strong point. He’ll know that people at lefty meetings are frequently asked by the chair to say who they are and where they come from. At organisations’ own meetings, everyone knows each other.
The ‘no platform’ question is not what’s being discussed here.
As for ‘anonymous James’ – oh yes, we need a lecture from him on ‘terrible errors’ ! ‘Terrible errors’…hmmm…..let me think….hmmm….ones that might result in an organisation losing members and credibility, say…hmmmm
I didn’t mention Renton in my contribution, or Birchalls age for that matter. It seems impossible to make any point which disagrees with Michael Rosen without him going off the deep end. Can socialist organisations and individuals work together whilst at the same time disagreeing on a number of points? My answer is yes but Michael appears to be arguing only on the basis that you have an internal structure which he agrees with. Of course this means revolutionary organisations could never work with reformist ones at any level on any issue..think the lessons from history should tell us this approach is a terrible error.
Please have your identity cards ready at every meeting Michael attends! You at the back! Who the hell do you think you are contradicting him? Don’t you know he’s published a book?
Silly inconsequential nonsense isn’t it? So I don’t know what that kind of argument from Michael has got to do with challenging the no platforming of socialists or whether the SWP, which is already working with others on the left, needs to get rid of the the slate system to develop unity with others on the left. If the precondition for unity is to get rid of certain forms of political organisation that others don’t necessarily agree with then so long Labour! So long Slut Walks! So long anyone who doesn’t meet a check list of prescribed organisational forms.
The logic of Renton’s argument is that Sheridan, challenging NOTW lies in court, is the evil Goliath because NOTW was just engaging in sweet, innocent free speech that must not be suppressed. Why not the overblown outrage at broken principles when the SWP supported Sheridan at the time? As James points out, those SP comrades accused of racism by their union went to court over those lies. Unless I’m mistaken, there were no articles from Renton and Rosen expressing outrage at this decision.
In my opinion Michael is outraged that the SWP won’t take its lumps as he believes it should. That now appears to be his raison d’etre. No matter that the motion is full of lies to cultivate a pitch fork mentality towards the SWP. No matter that the organisation proposing this motion is thoroughly undemocratic in its treatment of its own members who hold different political views to the leadership. No matter that no platforming socialists opens the door to all kinds of vile racist, sexist, homophobic groups who will take advantage of this motion if successful. The means justifies the ends and to legitimise this disgraceful behaviour the issue is twisted by Renton into a condemnation of anyone on the left occasionally threatening legal action to challenge lies about themselves.
So, let’s get this right: yet another anonymous person has come to rs21, this time to attack the named and known Ian Birchall. So, from highly esteemed veteran socialist, Birchall has descended to being some old twit with an inflated ego. Do you really, really think that Ian thinks that the sole reason why his letter is worth publishing because of who he thinks he is? He made at least two important points in his letter, neither of which, in your personal attack, have you thought to answer: i) the emptiness of the appeal for unity and ii) the ‘slate’ system (cf ‘panel’ system of the CPGB of 1950s) of perpetuating the status quo in the SWP.
Like the avatar Anonymous Ray, you’re still banging on about the SWP being banned. Yoiu’ll have noticed I’m sure that Dave Renton wasn’t defending this. Neither was I. So quite who anonymous James you think you’re talking to about this matter isn’t clear. There is only one issue at stake. Should the SWP use the threat of the libel courts?
As for your idea that the SWP hasn’t got any other means of replying, oh puhleeze! It has several journals at its disposal, could easily hold a press conference, could easily convene a meeting of fraternal organisations to draw up a kind of concordat about such matters. Yet again, an anonymous SWP-er tries the ‘there is no alternative’ boogy to end discussion. Maybe in works in anonny-land. It sure don’t work here.
The Birchall letter was interesting in that he seemed to think that the key way to judge whether the SWP is willing to work with others etc is not by reference to say anti racism, anti fascism, Palestine solidarity, inside the unions etc but crucially whether the newspaper publishes a letter by himself which he had already posted as wide as possible. There is a slight sense of inflated ego and a wayward sense of what indicates an organisation will work with others. Birchall appears to think he is the acid test but unfortunately for him he isn’t.
On the Edinburgh stuff. The SWP has alongside many other opposed the use of no platform except in the case of fascists. This is very specific for reasons I am sure people agree with. When this is then used against a revolutionary left organisation it should raise significant alarm bells. Who will be next…The Islamic society? Pro Palestinian societies , etc etc this is ABC. One look at France and how the left got it so wrong in relation to Islamaphobia and how the far right are gaining strength should be a lesson to us all.
When those trying to ban the SWP are saying lies and there is no right to reply at all. What option does one have? It seems any accusation can be made and this is then peddled around the internet as fact.
No one opposed the SP taking unison to court when 4 of its members were accused of racism…oh by the way they won! And yes the union paid damages and court costs of no doubt a considerable amount. Now was it a perfect way, no, but I think they were right in that they had no other recourse open to them.
By all means don’t come to SWP meetings, you can build your own organisation etc. but to use the tactic of banning and threats of violence against a socialist organisation is frankly the politics of the ghetto. Going to court is a serious matter but it ain’t one of absolute principle.
Of course the avatar Anonymous Ray would think it inappropriate to publish Ian Birchall’s letter. If you think that either I or Ian would think that a letter from either of us should be published because we’ve published books, then once again, you reveal your own personal problems with ‘authority’. One moment, a few posts back, it was the phantasm to do with what you think are higher levels of the left and now you imagine that there are people who think that they are entitled to be heard because they have published books. Something murky going on in the avatar’s mind there about tugging of forelocks, cow towing, grovelling and the like. Next thing, you’ll be saying that the ‘slate’ (‘panel’ in CPGB of 1957) system is a great way to run a ‘radical left’ organisation.
Ian, of course, can speak for himself – but I suspect that he felt that decades of work for IS and then SWP meant that he had some perspectives that people would be interested to hear. But in the true tradition of the CPGB of 1957, a person who criticises (using their experience) must become a non-person. One moment a person is a ‘senior member’ and is cited with regularity, and asked to produce articles at the drop of a hat, and the next they are annulled and extirpated. The feebleness of this approach to intellectual life is staggering – it’s the ultimate in ad hominem approaches to the world of ideas.
As for this libel/not libel affair, I personally can’t think why either the Edinburgh students or Dave Renton would lie about it. The avatar Anonymous Ray can.
And you’ve spectacularly missed my point that before making a judgement about something I want facts rather than hearsay. While I’m not sure atm whether accusations of libel were actually made against ESUA did the SWP not support Tommy Sheridan in his defamation case against NOTW? I assume Renton was still a member at this time?
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/9223/Statement+on+Tommy+Sheridans+libel+victory
As for the tendentious letter that SW failed to publish – I’m not surprised! I don’t agree that IB’s status, having a book published like you, automatically commands publication.
The avatar Anonymous Ray spectacularly misses point: no one here is supporting the ban of the SWP. What is at issue – (hey, guess what, the avatar Anonymous Ray . ignores it?!) – is the libel threat from Charlie.
Meanwhile, Grim and Dim has published the letter he sent to Socialist Worker and, to date, has not been published. Here it is:
http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2014-letter-to-socialist-worker/
I was not familiar with this case until Michael’s post. After a quick search on the internet, apparently, the FemSoc recently banned Kirsty Haigh, a former ESUA VPS, for violating “safe space” without explaining to her why or allowing her to challenge this decision. Haigh’s case was not the first incidence of this happening. I’ve no idea about her politics but what I gathered from my search was that Haigh was instrumental in the campaign to make ESUA the first SU to ban ‘Blurred Lines’ on campus and she’s supported student occupations and the lecturer’s strike. At the beginning of this year The Humanist Society lost a (well meaning?) motion to ban any form of segregation on UofE campus due to concerns that it might promote Islamophobia. The blog, ‘Students Rights’ (“tackling extremism on campuses”), is now trying to resurrect this issue in connection with the proposed SWP ban.
Now this information is based purely on what I’ve discovered while reading various online Edinburgh student newspapers. But, at the very least, it suggests that there’s more going on in University of Edinburgh campus politics than meets the eye.
Taking into consideration that this is a thread on RS21 forum about Leninism I don’t think it’s appropriate to respond to unsubstantiated gossip about a completely different issue. Needless to say I don’t think the solution to resolving disputes on the left is to support the banning of left groups on campus.
1. Avatar Anonymous Ray, you have responded. 2. It’s not ‘completely different’, as it’s ‘Leninism’ in practice – of sorts. 3. Only the Edinburgh students seemed in favour of banning. Not David Renton.
Oh yes, and here’s another one for the avatar Anonymous Ray to consider:
http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2014-letter-to-socialist-worker/
Now why wouldn’t it be published, I wonder….???
I hope that avatar Anonymous Ray can leap to the defence of why the SWP is suing some students for libel. Presumably the odious bourgeois justice system that couldn’t be trusted to investigate a rape allegation in the case of Comrade Delta CAN be trusted when it comes to suing some students. Here’s a link which is an attempt to analyse what’s going on. I, for one, would be interested to see what others think….
https://livesrunning.wordpress.com
The problem is there is no real debate in the SWP. There was no democratic debate on rejecting the politics of Tony Cliff, it was just decided to do this in private discussions of the leadership. A very good example of this is in the current edition of the ISJ (!44). The lead article is “The Case of the Disappearing Lenin” by Kevin Corr and Gareth Jenkins. The article puts a defence of Lenin against a Canadian Marxist scholar called Lars Lih.
Whilst I would agree with the general argument, it includes a ridiculous denial of the writings of Cliff on Lenin, (whilst at the same time managing to suggest that Cliff would agree with the authors).
Corr/Jenkins argue:
“The notion of “aggressive unoriginality” underlies Lih’s revisionist understanding of the significance of Lenin’s 1917 April Theses. In the activist interpretation, the Theses mark a sharp break from “old Bolshevism” and a rearming of the party that would make the October Revolution possible. It was a “bending of the stick” that faced even greater resistance than that put up by the committee-men in 1905.
(OK so far!)
(But now they start to loose it)
Lih rejects this, arguing that the *most famous of historical narratives” in which Lenin “arrives” in April, the Bolsheviks “are baffled with his new vision”, he “faces them down” and then, after a month’s debate, “everyone gets on board the new line” is simply wrong. Mutual misunderstandings and questions of timing apart, there was general agreement on the basic message, which was to “protect the revolution, respond to the national crisis, carry out the basic programme of the revolution.”
There was not “general agreement” on the basic message. Whilst you can criticise Lih on the tone he uses, his basic argument is correct.
In Lenin, Volume 2, Chapter 7, “Lenin Rearms the Party” Cliff explains what happened when Lenin arrived at the Finland Station.
Lenin said the Soviet manifesto bragged to Europe about the successes it had achieved. It spoke of the revolutionary force of democracy, of total political liberty. “But what kind of force was this, when the imperialist bourgeoise was at the head of the country? What kind of political liberty, when the secret diplomatic documents were not published and we couldn’t publish them? What kind of freedoms of speech, when all the printing facilities were in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and guarded by a bourgeois government! The revolutionary-defencist Soviet led by opportunists and social-patriots could only be an instrument of the bourgeois. We don’t need a parliamentary republic, we don’t need bourgeois democracy, we don’t need any government except the Soviet of Worker’s, Soldier’s and Farm-labourer’s Deputies.”
The next day at a joint meeting of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and independents, the Menshevik Bogdanov called Lenin a raving madman. I.P. Goldenberg, a former member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and soon to join the Mensheviks, said Lenin was supporting Bakunin and anarchism. Only Kollontai (a recent Menshevik) supported him, which drew general mockery and laughter.
Four days later The Theses was published in Lenin’s name alone: not one Bolshevik organisation, or group, or even individual had joined him. And the editors of Pravda for their part thought it necessary to emphasise Lenin’s isolation and their independence of him. ‘As for Lenin’s general scheme,’ wrote Pravda, ‘it seems to us unacceptable in so far as it proceeds from the assumption that the bourgeois democratic revolution is finished and counts on the immediate conversion of that revolution into a socialist revolution.’
The Bolsheviks originally expected the Russian revolution to be a bourgeois democratic revolution led by the proletariat and peasantry.
Lenin did not change his opinion that the revolution would be to end Tsarism and Feudalism until after the revolution of February 1917.
Lenin argued:
“We have side by side, existing together, simultaneously, both the rule of the bourgeoisie (the government of Lvov and Guchkov) and a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry which is voluntarily ceding power to the bourgeoise, voluntarily making itself an appendage of the bourgeois.
The ‘Old Bolshevik’ formula was bankrupt with the existence of dual power. Kamenev tried to argue for the old theory, which in practice meant chaining the worker’s to the bourgeois government.
As Cliff states, “Lenin had repeatedly to learn from experience, to overcome his own ideas of yesterday; he had to learn from the masses.
Kamenev, Goloshchekin, Shliapnikov, Zinoviev and Stalin on the Central Committee all originally opposed the April Theses.
Again Cliff:
“The Proletarian mass often sensed sooner than the leaders the real objective situation and the needs of the class. It was part of Lenin’s greatness that he shared this sense, and found the courage to tell the truth, however unpopular: telling the truth is at the heart of revolutionary politics.”
Party members, chiefly from the Vyborg District, had argued for opposition to the war and for Soviet power. If the Bolshevik Party had been made up of docile rank-and-file members led by an omniscient leader, the whole rearming of the party in April could not have arisen.
Trotsky wrote:
“Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place – on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring – of this I have not the slightest doubt!”
On a slightly different subject, it is not the case that changes to the make up of the class rule out revolutionary change, it is the role played by the trade union bureaucracy holding it back. The role of revolutionary socialists should be to express that desire for a fighback regularly shown by votes for strike action by worker’s which are then sold out by trade union leaders (as happened just last week). The problem is the lack of confidence generally of worker’s to take action independently of the union leadership. That independent action needs to be encouraged, not replaced by acting as a ginger group to the bureaucracy.
Hello Neil (real person)
Below I’m responding to your points in the order you put them
1. You are of course quite right to address the mind-set of ‘there is no alternative’. However, this is complicated by the fact that there is a group of people who say, ‘we are not saying “there is no alternative” who then go on to act precisely along the lines of “there is no alternative”! Whether this is a cunning dodge or a lack of self-awareness, we may never know. Either way, the result is the same: no real discussion or argument on the matter is possible. So, yes, in practice, there are people, the Anonymous Ray being an example, who sound as if they are eclectic but in reality, their whole politics is tied into ‘there is no alternative’. The origins of this can be found – and I guess we all have to face up to this – in the rhetorical style of Marx and Lenin when dealing with those who they thought were getting it wrong. This style is very absolutist, claiming (as we know) to be ‘scientific’ and often involves ‘eliminating’ other arguments and the like. How many times have you heard people saying e.g. ‘we were really “hard” on him over that one” or “I went in hard on that” or “I flattened him on that one”. I was stunned to read in one of the transcripts how Alex tried to publicly humiliate Ian Birchall with some kind of joke about what Cliff had said about him. In the transcripts of the discussions at the time of Hungary and the Minority Report in the CPGB, it’s grimly ironic to read people speaking in this tone of voice, being ‘hard’ on others in order to defend the tanks going in to Hungary or indeed anything and everything to do with the CP..
2. If you look back at this thread or indeed any discussion which tries to address the inability of the SWP (or indeed any Leninist or democratic centralist parties) to achieve what they want to achieve, you will hardly ever find any analysis which looks at any possibility that the notion of ‘the Party’ or indeed of the current leadership of ‘the Party’ can be at fault. You will read screeds (and I have) of analyses explaining why this or that other movement fails, misleads, goes nowhere. But if you ever dare say, that by the same criteria (i.e. failure/success) , can’t this be levelled at your party, your group, your organisation???, you will get hands over the ears and la la la. There is an inbuilt system of thinking which says, ‘we have the right organisation because everyone else is getting it wrong’. So, quite obviously when, in this case, the SWP got it wrong, there is bafflement and obfuscation. Anonymous Ray can only keep alluding to the idea that the matter has been dealt with.
3. If you keep challenging the sacred cow of ‘Leninism’ – or even worse – start getting post-structuralist about it, Anonymous Ray and others will get very nasty with you. The glossary of quasi-marxist terms of abuse will be thrown at you, as if that will settle matters. Sadly, the stereotypes about us all on the radical left being quasi-religious and how we use texts in much the same way as Christian exegesis does, has some truth in it. We treat these as ‘authorities’, we cite them in order to ‘flatten’ others. Ultimately, as you suggest, the proof is in the pudding. Or the pudding is in the proof. What is really bizarre to read throughout our history is that the fundamentalist certainties go hand in hand with so many abject failures, inability to grow, missed opportunities, and, ultimately, a real inability to succeed even in the one thing of being able to circulate socialist and marxist ideas – let alone increase activism. Just think, the TUC produced an excellent document which shows how, since Thatcher, there has been a major shift in wealth between capital and labour. This is pure class war stuff – absolute meat and potatoes for the socialist movement. Collectively, the radical left has been unable to raise the stakes on this. At the heart of this, sits an avatar like Anonymous Ray talking as if all’s well on the good ship Marxist Leninist Democratic Centralist SWP – an organisation, let’s remember, that couldn’t even deal with an allegation of sexual harassment or rape allegedly committed by one of its leading members – and then can’t analyse why or how that could have come about. It cannot and will not analyse the question of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ in its own organisation because that is non-marxist or even ‘foucauldian’. When challenged, Anonymous Ray et al will say that there is no issue of ‘power’, everyone is elected, it all goes to a vote etc etc. But as you and others have pointed out, the power is ossified through methods such as the ‘slate’ (see CPGB the ‘panel’) and the unaccountable presence and behaviour of full-timers (see CPGB for the same problem). Of course the matter of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ is always denied – another version of ‘We never say ‘there is no alternative’ but there is de facto no alternative’!) – even as someone like avatar Anonymous Ray talks of ‘upper circles of the British far left’! There is no issue of ‘power’ but little me, the avatar, is not like the ‘big’ ‘upper’ people. What a give-away of how authoritarian mind-sets (derived from capitalist ideology) are reproduced within hierarchical organisations – whether they be football clubs, industry, churches, or marxist, leninist, democratic centralist parties! The problem with Galloway or John Rees is not what the SWP said they were, ‘power-mad’ or ‘egotistical’ and the like. It was that, at that particular moment, they weren’t ‘our’ ‘power-made egotists’
4. Neil, you’re making a terrible mistake to challenge avatar Anonymous Ray by citing alternative examples of how democracy might work. You are breaking the the avatar’s rule: ‘We are not saying “there is no alternative” but there is no alternative’. Remember, there is rump trump. The rump trump is ‘we won the vote’. If ever for a moment this causes you to waver, remember that the CPGB exec (stuffed with full-timers) in 1957 said exactly the same about Hungary and the Minority Report. “We won the vote, therefore we are right. We are right therefore we won the vote.” End of.
5. There is some dangerous and frightening stuff in what you’re saying in this section. You’re talking about ‘change’ and also suggesting that some new tools might be necessary to tackle it…I would highlight a) the success of capitalism to sell itself…we know now that capitalism can sell itself as extremely desirable even as it prevents millions from having the very things that make it desirable. It wins allegiance to itself both through the products it sells and the huff and puff that is used to sell them (the ad and promotion business). We had thought in the 1960s that a lack of being able to buy what I want would create anger, dissidence and revolt. More often than not, it hasn’t. Somehow the suggestion that one day you might have what you desire is sufficient to keep people’s allegiance. b) the effect of personal debt – whether through loans or mortgages is massive. People are easily frightened by this. Livelihoods and living standards depend on personal debts, so that we are perpetually in a submissive position to those who lend. They have power over us. This ties us into the system extremely powerfully. It is finance capital’s equivalent of the landlord at your door. I have very rarely seen an analysis of how this operates on us to guarantee our submission. The purely workerist view fails to see that many workers are now in debt (where in Marx’s time, say, they weren’t). Even a straight forward matter of ‘will you or won’t you strike? will also be a question ‘will you or won’t you risk jeopardising your payments to e.g. the mortgage company, the loan company). With ideology upping the stakes on what ‘your home’ and ‘your car’ means in terms of your identity, this makes collective action a matter of will I won’t I jeopardise my identity! c) Education has a powerful role to play in creating passivity. I have argued for some years now that there are two key spheres of education – a) cultural transmission through ‘knowledge’ and b) behaviour management through punishment systems, authority systems and examinations. These all teach passivity through the very fact that most of it happens in an unquestioned and unquestionable way – it all appears to be ‘natural’. What’s worse, the hierarchies appear not to be created by the system but by you the participant! If I fail or I am ‘naughty’ that is ‘my’ fault. The fact that these systems draw up the thresholds for which there must be people below, who are failing, is displaced on to the individual. I think that millions of people take this passivity into life.
None of this is to preach despair. It is rather to say that all this requires a) analysis and b) discussion of how can it be opposed. Turning out a newspaper which doesn’t address it on the grounds that it is only through action in the workplace which will equip people with the means to know that they can oppose…etc etc is not enough. It may be a necessary condition but it’s clearly not a sufficient one – unless you subscribe to the avatar Anonymous Ray’s view that it’s all going as well as can be expected.
One of the answers – and it is only one – is a cultural matter. The radical left at times finds it hard to see itself as ‘cultural’. Newspapers, meetings, conferences are artefacts. The process of making them is not that much different from making anything that we regard as cultural like a piece of theatre or a poem. So, consider a 25 year old making her way through the world choosing bits of culture, having culture presented to her, often but not always in the context of stuff produced with billions of pounds of investment. Alternatively, she goes to, let’s say, Glastonbury, or a local pub cabaret or buys some music online. How does the meeting, newspaper or conference look alongside these things? Or indeed, the Party? What will it offer that will be equally interesting? How will it reach that person?
One problem is that the more ‘political’ the cultural artefacts of political organisations are, the less they feel like the cultural stuff that people choose. And yet, we say, that it’s the political stuff that will make them ‘political’. Meanwhile, over and over again, we read or hear of people who were themselves turned on to politics because of (as Pat Stack always used to say) Bob Dylan or the Arctic Monkeys or the Coen Brothers etc etc.
I have no answers here other than to observe the mismatches (and missed opportunities) going on here. Now, irony of ironies, Martin Smith clearly understood this. The reason why I was glad to support LMHR was precisely because of its cultural politics and its political culture. I don’t need to describe the mixture of disappointment and – I think I can use the word – betrayal, that followed events. And I hasten to say, that is NOT because I have automatically deemed anyone guilty. But entirely because of the way the allegations were handled, not handled and have now supposedly been put to bed, and ‘dealt with’.
Hi Neil, great response!
1. I’ve never argued that you’ve all become reformists or autonomists. I’ve responded to a debate about the relevance of so-called, “Leninism”, which I’m very much aware is a post-Lenin concept that has been used to legitimise a variety of political strategies. I’m arguing for the relevance of a revolutionary party as conceived by Lenin in contemporary circumstances. I’ve never heard anyone on the CC argue that the SWP is ‘the’ revolutionary party so I’m not sure how that’s relevant. Perhaps you know Michael well, I’ve never moved in the upper circles of the British far left or published a book, but his position on alternative forms of organisaqtion, based on forum posts, is about as clear as mud. I think the analogy he makes between the CPGB in 1957 and the current CC is specious.
2. If I understand your second point correctly then I’m not allowed to criticise reformism because the SWP hasn’t led a revolution? Surely that would mean we should ignore Luxemburg and other socialists who didn’t overthrow capitalism but were critical of reformism? Benjamin was very critical of reformism but failed to lead a revolution. So I’m in good company then!
Concerning the size of the SWP, well it did grow at certain points, around the same time Benn narrowly lost the deputy leadership election but what happened to the Labour left since then? Pretty much what happened to all left groups in the UK. They shrunk! This is not down to just “unfavourable objective circumstances” but subjective factors so why is it that the revolutionary party is an anachronism but not other parts of the left? The fortunes of the international left has changed over the last 65 years and are at a pretty low ebb in the UK right now so perhaps we should just give up based on that truism?
3. Leaving aside your highly tendentious account of Cliff. The recent articles on “Leninism” in the ISJ clearly set out a conception of it that I agree with. You may not agree with that model of organisation any longer and support a different one but it’s there set out in 1 & 0’s and print. These articles critique other left strategies in relation to that model. Now you may claim that they distort Lenin’s ideas, need updating somehow or are a misrepresentation of other forms of organisation but if so what are your alternatives?
4. This question is about proposing all the things you list and then putting them to the vote. Those who left the SWP lost that vote and chose to leave. What is the point of democratic centralism if a minority refuses to accept a majority decision? You have every right to be critical of that decision and presumably still are but once again, what are your alternatives and why weren’t they convincing? Claiming that this was because SWP members are mindless drones who’ll believe anything the CC feeds them, as some on the sectarian left do, is another convenient but unconvincing argument which, sadly, pops up in some of the posts in this and other threads about “Leninism” on this forum.
5. On the one hand you complain that I blame the state of the left on objective factors while on the other you ask me whether I think the consciousness of workers has changed. It’s pretty clear from my posts that I think the two are related but I don’t agree with the analysis that the working class has changed so significantly that a revolutionary party is now an anachronism.
Regarding the “truth” as you call it, your claim that I’m not open to different forms of organisation or alternative political strategies to the ones the SWP proposes is really a version of the “drone” canard. It doesn’t follow that having a standpoint on something prohibits a change of thinking. I’m open to new ideas, if they’re credible. If you want to convince people that you have discovered a new “truth” tailor made for the new millennium then what is it and how effective is it in practice? The argument that we’re in transition so we can’t even conceive of it yet or that we need to run focus groups with workers and the rest of the left until they come up with a solution, that is sometimes used in these debates, is pretty convenient but not very convincing.
Having been involved with the Occupy movement in the UK, as I’m sure some in RS21 were, it was evident to me that they weren’t waiting for revolutionaries to come up with a plan (with or without consultation) because those leading these movements had already formed a strategy. We want to work with others on the left and those activists who hate capitalism (but don’t even identify themselves as of the left) but there’s a hegemonic struggle over ideas happening at the moment and the risk of underplaying revolutionary ideas to appease conservative elements of these movements is always a temptation. I think Counterfire has made this mistake. I hope RS21 don’t go down that road.
So why reply then? There’s no evidence that you’re the real Michael Rosen and perhaps a Baudrillardian simulation which he would argue is the real nature of online presence. You don’t seem to have a problem with online anonymity if is agrees with your perspective but when it doesn’t, instead of actually having a debate, you resort to accusations of bad faith. Perhaps the next time you’re at a meeting maybe you should take names, full bio’s and demand name tags as you have here before you have a debate?
As I pointed out, there is no evidence that you are a member of any organisation anywhere. It’s quite possible that you are a computer generated text producing mash-ups taken from old articles. The more you post, the less likely it is that you exist.
Another over the top denunciation which is best forgotten! Let’s go down through your list. Take Counterfire for example, what is it you think they’ve got right in comparison to “Leninist” organisations? As I pointed out many posts ago debate only works when you actually do the comparing and contrasting instead of posting favourite lists.
OK Ray – let’s go through the problems with your method of argumentation.
1. You make the assumption that everyone who has left the SWP has done so in order to embrace either ‘reformism’ or ‘autonomism’ – although since you also seem to regard the latter as a form of the former its not clear what the distinction is. But this is wrong. The majority of comrades who have left still regard themselves as revolutionaries, they simply no longer believe that the SWP is ‘the’ revolutionary party, or has the capacity to become it. You may disagree – you clearly do – but no member of RS21 (or indeed Mike Rosen) is making a reformist argument, that’s not why we left. (Indeed, my own position on the Labour Party is actually harder than the SWP leadership’s since I doubt that the former can even be described any longer as a Social Democratic organisation – although I accept this may an ultra-left deviation :)).
2. You apply a double standard in assessing reformist parties and the SWP. The former you condemn, quite rightly, because they have failed to bring about socialism through parliament. But the SWP and other Leninist parties (and it’s not clear whether you think there are any Leninist parties outside the IST) are not condemned for failing to achieve the revolution. At one level, of course, it would be unfair to do so, since revolutions are not initiated by revolutionary parties but by the working class and the oppressed. So let’s set the bar lower: why is the SWP so still so small, and shrinking, after being in existence in one form or another for 65 years? Perhaps comrades haven’t sold enough papers? Could it be our old pal ‘unfavourable objective circumstances’? But the circumstances have varied enormously during that time and at several points – not just 1968-1975 – they have been very favourable indeed. In any case, its not much of an argument for the ‘success’ of a party if you endlessly claim that you haven’t grown because conditions weren’t right – surely the point of an effective organisation is to overcome these difficulties, but the SWP has blown every opportunity for consistent growth its been presented with – and I say this as someone who is quite convinced of the epochal significance of the ANL and – to a lesser extent – of StW.
3. You keep talking about ‘Leninism’ as if we all know what that is; but the fact that we don’t is precisely (one of) the points at issue. As several contributors to this thread have already pointed out, ‘Leninism’ is construct which followed VIL’s death – a product of the so-called ‘Bolshevisation’ of the Comintern from 1924. Unfortunately, this is the model (monolithic leadership, etc.) which was adopted by most Trotskyist organisations – except the International Socialists. Cliff’s books on Lenin are highly tendentious accounts (‘Lenin volume 1’ should actually be called ‘Cliff volume 1’) designed to justify the model he wanted (and succeeded) in having adopted in 1976. Unless you simply mean that ‘Leninism’ is ‘whatever the SWP leadership says it is’ you can’t keep throwing the term around without explaining what you mean by it.
4. Democratic centralism perhaps? Fine – but if that just means, ‘first we discuss, then we decide, then we act – together’, you’ll forgive me for not being bowled over by theory’s wisdom. I am in favour of what I’ve just summarised, but it does rather leave certain issues unresolved. Who decides – the whole membership or delegates? How often do decisions get made? In what circumstances can they be overturned? Do groups of members have equal rights with the leadership to promote alternative positions or do the latter use the apparatus to enforce their views? What level of decision making can be devolved to regions or sub-nations where conditions might be different from London? Is there a balance in the leadership between full-timers and workers/students? And so on. The formula of ‘democratic centralism’ is meaningless and can involve all sorts of totally undemocratic practices unless these very concrete questions – and others – are answered.
5. Finally, the problem with both the tone and content of your many contributions to this site is their quasi-religious tone: the Truth has been Revealed, the questions have all been answered, in fact, there are no new questions because the world has apparently remained the same since…well, when exactly did time stop? 1985? 1973? 1917? Do you really think that the working class and its forms of consciousness are the same today as they were in (say) 1979, and if they are not, how could the same forms of organisation be appropriate? I have no doubt that some conclusions that Marxists have reached over the years are and will remain true – the need to overthrow the state, the contradictory nature of working-class consciousness, and the necessity for rank and file trade unionism among others- but these are starting points for us: the point is, how can we most effectively be revolutionaries, Leninists if you like, in our time, nor Lenin’s or Cliff’s.
Of course you’re going to have a clash of ideas when groups with different political agendas unite over a single or range of issues. This is the experience of revolutionary socialists going back before Lenin. Even William Morris had the same problem! Some of these united fronts work out well, other don’t. There are plenty of critical analysis’s online and offline about this. When activists criticise revolutionaries for selling papers at meetings I wonder what do they make of their own particular political current promoting their own agenda at these events?
Posting a list of organisations that supposedly represent different political strategies doesn’t encourage a debate about political organisation. What is it about them that’s offers advantages over “Leninism”? In this debate about the relevance of Leninism, just saying that it’s shit without setting out a credible alternative IS carping from the sidelines. What have all your achievements got to do with this specific debate about the relevance of Leninism?
Anonymous Ray says, ‘Posting a list of organisations that supposedly represent different political strategies doesn’t encourage a debate about political organisation’. One of the methods of debate and argument is to present examples and compare and contrast them. This has been going on for about 3000 years. As someone who inherited this tradition, Marx was especially keen on it. Anonymous Ray isn’t.
Perhaps you couldn’t be arsed to read the bit of my previous post about what ex-members of the SWP are doing. I think you’ll find there that the phrase ‘just saying it’s shit’ is the very opposite of my point there. I’m beginning to think, Anonymous Ray, that you don’t really read what people are saying to you, so my conclusion is that you are a hoax. I suspect that every time you post, someone else leaves the SWP and those who remain flinch with embarrassment at the what you write in their name. I suspect therefore, you are indeed a hedge fund manager from UKIP and to tell the truth, I don’t think I should be discussing radical left politics with a hedge fund manager from UKIP anymore.
ps – of course you don’t enable any of us to know whether you are on the ‘sidelines’ or at the ‘centre’ or indeed anywhere. That’s because you are aloof from us in the land of anonymity. What an irony, anonymous poster calls named person to account! For all we know, you are a hedge fund manager from UKIP just coming here and having a laugh. You could even write ‘And I’m not a hedge fund manager from UKIP having a laugh’ and you could still be a ‘hedge fund manager from UKIP coming here and having a laugh’. Yes, internet forums have their failings and you’re one of them.
Ray, one person’s ‘sidelines’ is another person’s ‘centre’ and one person’s ‘centre’ is another person’s ‘sidelines’. This is part of the problem of belonging to certain political organisations. You spend your time thinking that your ‘line’ is the only, true way and then extrapolate from that that all other ways are not true, and are peripheral i.e. on the ‘sidelines’ or in the ‘swamp’ – I’m sure you can fill in other terms yourself. So let’s deal with ‘centre’ and ‘sidelines’ vis a vis the SWP, first.
Have you never heard the complaint that the SWP have on occasions joined organisations or even created organisations only for then to it appear that they did that in order to break them? Or that because those organisations didn’t do what the SWP wanted them to do, they broke them? Have you ever heard of complaints that the SWP have turned up to campaigns or meetings purely in order to sell newspapers? etc etc. I have heard these complaints many, many times down through the years. Mostly I’ve ignored them and put them down to envy, misunderstanding and the like. What do you think? Do you think it’s possible that there is a problem for Leninist organisations acting within movements and alliances that others start to feel that their presence is purely in order to recruit? And that committee meetings for campaigns and alliances start to feel that recruitment comes before all else? Have you ever heard of such problems? Do you think the matter can be simply resolved by you endlessly repeating that you’ve solved everything and everyone else is on the ‘sidelines’
Now, the matter of whether I’m on the ‘sidelines’. I’ll take this as an insult, if I may. That’s to say that what I’ve done or am doing as regards the ‘radical left’ is ‘sideline’ stuff. Well, I know that I devote a good deal of my time working within education and with ideas and ideology to do with childhood. I know that the word ‘child’ or ‘childhood’ immediately places a person on the ‘sidelines’ when it comes to most ‘radical left’ organisations because, quite obviously, children are a waste of time. They stop people from attending meetings and until they’re old enough to go on strike, they just get in the way. The fact that the matter of ‘reproduction of capitalism’ depends in part on the ideological and physical formation of children and young people is of course beside the point. It is, as you say, the ‘sidelines’.
As for the ideas circulating: oh dear, I didn’t think that I needed either to repeat them: Stop the War, Counterfire, rs21 – as just three that I know of – nor did I think I would need to mention the fact that to my knowledge, other people who’ve left the SWP have been beavering away thinking and acting in ways that they think might help the ‘radical left’. I’ve heard, for example, of someone with many decades of experience in the SWP and IS before that, who has responded to the absurd editorial in SW which called for unity without a)dealing with widespread lack of trust many on the radical left have for the SWP and b) any concrete proposal for how that unity might be achieved.
I have pointed out to you several times why it’s not appropriate for me to randomly come up with proposals for what might be best or better. I suspect that you and I believe in theory-in-practice and practice-in-theory. In which case, you and I know that me sitting typing is of very little value alongside people within organisations doing things, checking to see if such things work, or don’t work. As i say, people are experimenting with this even as we write. This is not on the ‘sidelines’. It’s doing it. So, to take one example, it took a great deal of organisation to put together the big demonstrations for Gaza. I wasn’t in the committee meetings that did that. I was called on (from the ‘sidelines’ of course) to perform at several of those and smaller meetings. I was able to do it once and provide poems for free circulation which since then have been turned into everything from videos to raffle prizes and fund-raisers. I suspect that those who were on the committee learned a massive amount about what’s possible and not possible in the present context. I’m not arrogant enough to think that I have that kind of knowledge in my head. You seem to think that I should. Or that if I don’t have it, it’s not happening and the only place where anything is happening is….in the SWP. How bizarre.
In the meantime, from the ‘sidelines’, I’ve written a book about education which seeks to challenge the basis of neo-liberal ideas about education. Because this is a matter that affects hundreds of thousands of people – possibly millions; and because the structuring of education is a very abstract matter for most people; and because the site for the ‘reproduction’ of capitalism is not only school but also home, it’s directed towards parents and children. This is a fraught area for the ‘radical left’ view of ‘what’s to be done’ as the ‘family’ is seen purely and simply as a site for oppression and reproduction (of both kinds). However, many radical left people also happen to be parents who, like my parents, do their best at resisting the prevailing ideology even in the process of living with children i.e. me! I’ve even met many of them at Marxisms, or at Bookmarks Bookshop when I’ve been doing one of my events. I would love to hear whether they think that’s all ‘sidelines’ stuff too.
Part of this is about how we envisage the future through our acts in the present. But that’s another matter, perhaps.
My pleasure Michael! Once again it’s up to others to do all the work while you dodge the question and carp from the sidelines. For someone who claims to be aware of, “great open thinking, speculation and reflection on other possible ways of going on”, you offer none of this – not even an overview of it. If you had done perhaps that could’ve been debated?
I asked the question in my last post, “Without a revolutionary organisation of some kind embedded in the class then what other way is there to influence struggle so that, at decisive moments like 1917, it transcends the limited demands of reformism?” Unless there’s a convincing and credible alternative to “Leninism” rather than a rehash of old reformist strategies dressed up in new clothes, it doesn’t matter how many decades or experience or fresh faced iconoclasm someone claims gives them authority and their ideas legitimacy, these ideas are still subject to critical analysis.
When Jules Alford talks about Capitalism’s decadence, with the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, the military capability of world destruction, environmental destruction – the system is even worse than when there was the big revolutionary wave that he talked about. The need for a revolutionary party is greater than ever. What Lenin taught us was the need for a rooted revolutionary party. It was the lack of such parties with the experience of the Bolsheviks which led to the defeat of this wave.
He has learnt the wrong lesson from the abandonment of the teachings of the revolutionary greats by the SWP. The answer is not to abandon Lenin, but to rediscover the politics that has been thrown away.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Cliff all made mistakes, that is not the problem, you learn from them. To see what is happening beyond the crowd, we have to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Although the SWP now argues that much of the politics of Trotsky, Luxemburg and Cliff are “out of date”, as they take the organisation in a centrist direction and an alliance with the trade union bureaucracy, they sometimes still show the relevance of revolutionary politics.
The best example of this is the results from hanging on to Trotsky’s theory of the united front. The fascists have been beaten back and prevented from becoming a “respectable” electoral force.
If you refuse to learn from the class, the most revolutionary element, then you just end up telling lies and going into terminal decline. This sadly, is what has happened with the SWP. So whilst rejecting the politics of Cliff, they still claim to stand in his tradition. Whilst admitting they make mistakes, the biggest mistake they see is “autonomist” student members who do not just go along with the “experts” on the central committee.
We are now back in an age of revolutions, look at Egypt and the revolt in Greece. With capitalism in crisis, we need a revolutionary party, there is no reformist road.
What is ‘incredible’, Ray, is you coming here, repeating over and over again that what there is is great, nothing is better, nothing needs to change and everything else is illusory or deluded. (Shades of Alex saying that there is nothing new in the known universe). Meanwhile, beneath and above the radar, many people with decades of commitment are doing some great open thinking, speculation and reflection on other possible ways of going on. It is of course necessary for you to remind us all of the dangers of ‘reformism’ as if reformism is something we had never thought about before. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that the radical/revolutionary left has been battling with this problem, every waking minute, from (at least) since William Morris’s interventions. I make that about 130 years. The idea that you need to come here and deliver a little sermon on the matter is indeed ‘incredible’. I’ve no idea who you are, but if you are anywhere near me on any occasion, could you have a badge to hand, with the words on it ‘Ray B., lectures on reformism to order’ so that you can quickly affix it to yourself and I can escape through the back door.