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.
I don’t think you know or realise what goes on under your nose and I don’t understand why you persist in extrapolating what I say into some scenario I don’t believe in. I didn’t say Lenin = Stalin. And I didn’t over-determine ‘power’. However, by doing this kind of extrapolating (a very old rhetorical dodge, by the way – see the CPGB’s put-downs of the Minority Report), it enables you to not examine any possible mishaps or failings in your own tent. ( I notice that this happened again and again during the Delta crisis e.g. ‘So are you saying that an older man can’t have a relationship with a younger woman, eh? eh? eh?’ etc etc)
So, I am saying to you that small Leninist groupings have several tendencies e.g. shredding celebrated members who become more or less invisible. Yes, their past writings for the organisation are not always disappeared, but their presence in the socialist movement is. However, more serious than that is the ‘corridor’ effect. Apart from a small core of oldies, most people’s life in a leninist organisation doesn’t last much beyond ten or fifteen years. So, though organisations always trumpet ‘recruits’ , it doesn’t seem to able to analyse why membership is in general temporary. For example, I wonder how many people there are in the country who are ex-members of the CP, WRP, Militant-SP, the various Maoist groupings, IMG, RCP, IS-SWP? A hundred thousand? Why are they ex-members? Why or how did we lose them?
I would suggest that one main reason for that, is that the organisational structure and behaviour of these organisations was not right for them. Simply blaming it all on to e.g. social democracy, is not sufficient.
Part of it is the endless and pointless mix of triumphalism and millenarian expectation-ism. So on the one hand the organisations say that x was a stupendous and amazing victory and on the other that another triumph is just round the corner…so we all need to work just that bit harder tomorrow and we’ll be there. After a few years, many people, especially if they’re in busy jobs and have children can’t cope with this sort of thing.
I don’t think you address what I was saying about ‘generalising the struggle’. I wasn’t saying that it’s impossible or that it doesn’t sometimes happen briefly. I was pointing to a collective failure on all our parts to achieve this over the last 100 years! My own view is that though Leninist organisations are very good at maintaining the flow of theory, they are crap at ‘generalising the struggle’. And part of the reason is to do with the in-built structural ossification which leads to these weird behaviours and effects I’m talking about – ‘corridor effect’, Healey/Delta events, expulsions, disappearances, to which I would add the crazy competitive recruiting at public meetings. There have been times when I’ve been approached by 5 different leninist organisations at one meeting!
My battery is running out. I’ll address ‘power’ in another post.
Michael, be interested who was made to disappear in the SWP! Your arguement is a familiar one which in short rests on a traditional lenin lead to Stalin narrative. No one in the SWP today or previously has argued that the structure of society is the same as at the turn of the last century.indeed much has been written on this stuff from Kidron, Cliff, Harman and Callinicos amongst many others. One of the foundng elements of the SWP was the theory of the permanent arms economy and how capitalism was able to stabilise itself post Second World War.
However the capitalist state remains centralised and one that rules for the ruling class etc so the fundamental point about the need for a democratic centralist revolutionary organisation in my view retains is necessity , of course one can argue alternatives but the arguement is a very old one. On the question of uneven conciousness the precise way this is formulated today will have different elements..but is there unevenness in the class and is the arguement that those who are most militant and wanting to see a complete destruction of the system etc better and more effective if they are organised together? I would suggest that remains true. Is the SWP the complete article in this then obviously not, many many great fighters are not members of the SWPl or any organisation,, I think this is a weakness for our side.
In terms of generalising the struggle. I don’t think this simply comes from a newspaper or internet for that matter…the struggle can lead people to generalise, to make links with their own situation and others, can start to see through the fog, I guess the miners strike was such a brilliant example of that despite the defeat etc.mi would have thought in Ireland at the moment there are many questioning the system through the water charge revolt which seems to me to be on a huge scale…now having revolutionaries centrally involved in that movement helps the process of generalising, of making links, of seen the bigger picture etc as well as arguing for a way to win etc.
You say ian birchall, john rees etc are non people…not sure what is meant by this. I thought ian spoke at marxism last year? Richard seymour and China have left the party and formed ISN which has been a rip roaring success! , they disagreed etc that’s fine so not sure what the issue is? John rees also left the party, why? Because he wanted to have a fairly uncritical alliance with the trade union leaders via people assembly. There was much debate within the party about if you could have a stop the war type organisation re austerity and the problem regarding the trade union leaders etc. john is not a non person, he left the party and started Counterfire ! Not sure what else there is to say.his books remain in bookmarks and are on the party website as are lindsey Germans and ian birchall..photos have not be altered to remove them!,..it really is a trigger to the Stalin stuff that you use the language of disappearance and non persons. It is the same old arguement that the russian revolution failed not because of its isolation etc but power hungry people will always keep power and it’s in our human nature..I don’t say you believe all that but that is what it ultimately rests on.
…and if there are party employees on the ‘slate’, you guarantee that at least some of the decisions made by the executive are made in order to guarantee the livelihoods of those full-timers. It’s locked in. The funny thing is , is that the analysis of why and how was made by people like the SWP and IS when it looked at Trade union bureaucracies in some brilliant papers and books in the late 60s early 70s. The party just can’t apply it to their own structures because….because….because….well, ultimately because the elite will always justify its right to be the elite, whether that’s through citing the holy writ of Lenin or whatever.
Has the nature of capitalism changed in anyway since 1917 Russia? Have the reasons for the unevenness of class consciousness changed since then?
Then, if we observe the behaviour of Leninist parties over the last 100 years, have any patterns of action and behaviour emerged which might possibly suggest that their structures tend towards certain ways of going on which have not been productive? Have any repeated actions not produced the results that people in those parties say that they should?
I’ve already mentioned one of these last ones: there has been a hundred years of journalism from Leninist parties and groups which has been solely intent on ‘generalising the struggle’. I put it to you, how successful has this been?
Most Leninist parties that I know of use a ‘slate’ or ‘panel’ system and if they are big enough, they have people on a pay role – part- and full-timers. The main effect of the slate is to create party ‘elders’ who become a cabal, or elite who behave like any other cabal or elite in any organisation of any kind. They start to talk and write as if they’ve know more than they know, they ‘rule’ on issues they shouldn’t rule on. So, while the ‘party’ preaches recall of trade union leaders, recall of MPs it can’t and won’t have a circulating leadership. Side effects of this are the mystery expulsions, resignations and disappearances. You have the charade of people once honoured and feted suddenly becoming non-people. From the outside this looks bizarre, untrustworthy and childish. Why would you or could you trust an organisation that behaves like that to its longstanding members? In fact, it reeks of a religiosity, and cult behaviour.
So when a crisis hits the elite, whether that be on a political or personal matter, guess what? They behave like an elite: they defend their right to be the elite and run around securing a line, holding a position, sending out directives, banning this or that, excluding and dishonouring. This is then paraded as healthy ‘bloodletting’ or some other bit of cods. In other words, one of the features of these parties has been the incredible ability they have of shedding members, and stamping out ‘dissent’ and losing people with wide-ranging ideas. So you then get the wonderful irony of the party running along after dissenting types outside of the party, feting ‘resistant’ and ‘rebellious’ ideas on the outside and stamping them out on the inside. So, in the case of the SWP, it’s laughable and pathetic that people like Richard Seymour, China Mieville, Ian Birchall, John Rees, are either non-people or vilified while all kinds of dissenting writing and artistic output going on in the outside world, is written about appreciatively. This sort of thing is not new. It’s been going on in Leninist parties for a hundred years. Again, from the outside, it just looks dodgy and unsafe. So, the ‘party’ looks on the one hand as if it’s welcoming and open and on the other, when you lift the lid, it looks narrow and persecuting. And it is! The idea that this kind of behaviour helps build socialism is again, laughable.
Meanwhile, capitalism has changed in several important ways: it has become brilliant at creating desire for its products even amongst those who can’t afford them. It’s become brilliant at creating passivity through mass media and mass education. In many parts of capitalism the workplace has changed so that smaller groups of people come into contact with each other. Entertainment through the mass media has atomised people much more than in the past. At the heart of a lot of this is that ‘choice’ has become a fetish as powerful as the commodity. But in this case, it is mostly bogus. However, the powerful part of it is that it absorbs people’s sense of participation and entitlement. I am choosing between these two kinds of shirt. I am exercising my ‘freedom’ to do this. Yet, the freedom over the production and distribution of those shirts is zero.
This needs engaging with in imaginative and open ways. It’s all pervasive. Getting into little top-down organisations who persecute their own once-great members ain’t going to do it! Absolutely not.
Why? Has the state become less centralised? Has the unevenness of class consciousness become obsolete? These were the two central tenants of the type of organisation associated with Lenin.
I’m unconvinced that deriving a party structure from that time is helpful or useful. We should be thinking in terms of federations, networks, umbrellas…
No Michael,
But in some ways life is easier now. In 1917 the working class was much smaller, and debate is harder when reformism is forbidden.
But it is true Lenin didn’t have to worry about reformist trade union leaders in his day.
But we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can look at what is relevant from the politics of Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Cliff.
1917, Russia…hmmm not very like UK 2014 is it?
Lenin showed the need for a party by the victory in 1917 Michael Rosen.
You are right to say after a hundred years we do need to look where we have gone wrong.
But you do have to look at the objective conditions as well. As Tony Cliff wrote in “A World to Win”, the First, Second and Third Internationals came into existence during periods of working class advance; the Trotskyist organisations were born during a dire period in working class history-the victory of Nazism and Stalinism.
Trotsky’s criticism of Stalinism in the 1920s and 1930s was absolutely correct. But tragically this did not benefit Trotskyism. The disastrous errors of Stalinism contributed to Hitler’s victory and to setbacks in Britain, Spain and China. In consequence a defeated working class looked for a strong organisation to save it from the Nazi catastrophe. Stalinism became a religion.
This fact held back revolutionary struggle for decades. When the class grew in strength leading to a mass general strike in France in 1968, the Communist Party could play a leading role in saving Capitalism.
Some would probably agree with me on this, but then say, Stalinism is now dead, so how is it a revolutionary party cannot grow when Capitalism is in crisis?
If you use the wrong tools you cannot grow. The SWP grew even when Stalinism was still powerful because it believed in the centrality of the working class.
The long years of industrial downturn, whilst politically with the growth of movements an upturn was taking place, made it very difficult to keep hold of the belief of the centrality of the working class.
Because things were difficult, the leadership of the SWP decided to move in a centrist direction (without debating in the party whether this would be a good idea). Rank and file members were not entirely happy with this but in a low level of class struggle were not confident enough to fight it.
As Cliff and Lenin recognised, the most revolutionary class are the working class. When workers started to spectacularly fight back with wildcat strikes in 2009 “a bending of the stick” in the SWP was desperately needed.
Unfortunately Martin Smith was no Lenin. The original wildcat strike by Lindsey oil refinery workers was a racist
strike, calling for “British jobs for British workers” – supporting Gordon Brown’s slogan. A few months later construction workers came out again, rejected racism after socialists argued with them, and won.
As the SWP took a clear anti-racist line at the time, the organisation was justifiably proud of this massive working class victory. But because they had looked to a temporary alliance with the trade union bureaucracy they could not see it was time to “bend the stick”. This was despite the reactionary position of the union leader Derek Simpson.
I remember clearly a meeting discussing the strike victory at Marxism event. Michael Bradley argued that “this is our time”. But because he is waiting for the likes of Billy Hayes to initiate struggle things have regressed massively, rather than progressed.
We need to see the rank and file struggle victories in construction (and the sparks) as a stepping stone to building a rank and file movement, and at the same time build a revolutionary party. The SWP has rejected this strategy, instead looking to a broad left, ginger group strategy.
If you do not listen, or are not prepared to learn from the class, then eventually you will become irrelevant. You do have to generalise the struggle, but you cannot do this if you use the wrong tools. Who teaches the teachers? Just pretending “Leninism” is agreeing with Charlie Kimber and Alex Callinicos is obviously a dead end.
More generally speaking, there is the question as to whether ‘marxism’ has to come bolted on to ‘the party’? This is not just a matter of the SWP, but a century-old problem. Clearly for ‘marxism’ to be more than a set of interesting ideas, it has to be linked to ‘organisation’ and ‘change’. Since the Russian Revolution, most people who’ve described themselves as marxists have thought that the best way to make this link is with a ‘party’ and the many parties that have evolved have derived from the Russian model whether they called themselves ‘Communist’, ‘Trotskyist’ ‘Revolutionary Socialist’ etc.
People in these many organisations over the last hundred years have fought bitterly over who is being ‘correct’, who is the true inheritor of Lenin etc etc. The ossification of the SWP could be a moment where we question this bolting of marxism to ‘party’. People who are no longer – or who were never in a party- can take (and of course are taking) time to consider several what-ifs that weren’t possible so long as one always thought marxism-party, party-marxism.
One of the delusions that grips parties is that with their tiny membership and uncertain leaders, that the ‘intervention’ being made is absolutely ‘vital’ to the outcome of events going on. And that being in ‘the party’ is what has made this ‘intervention’ so important/successful etc etc. To take one example: one of the tasks all marxist parties have taken on since 1917 is to ‘generalise the struggle’. So, through the medium of the ‘the paper’, the party lists reports of the struggles going on all over the country and all over the world. It is hoped that when people in one struggle read the report of their struggle and alongside it all the others, they will move from seeing themselves in a sectional dispute to one where they perceive of themselves as being in a class ‘for itself’.
Open question: in a hundred years of trying this, how successful has any party been in ‘generalising the struggle’? If the answer is ‘not very’, might there be any cause to question whether the process has experienced any snags? If so, what might these snags be?
James,
The fact that you can show that not all superstars are all bad, and how much you like hanging around superstars – this doesn’t explain what benefit you obtain from hanging around Billy Hayes?
I’m sure he may be very pleasant and may well buy you a few beers, but this is not much consolation to the postal workers who have their jobs and conditions sold down the river, after they voted by a massive amount for strike action.
Perhaps you should reconsider whether your friend Martin Smith was correct when he argued the trade union leaders want to fight, but just lack confidence?
Or perhaps you have written off the working class, and see Billy Hayes as the last hope for mankind.
That’s right sparky the SWP supports high salaries for trade union officials..I have seen it in their paper, union motions, leaflets and meetings…of course I agree being at the same meeting with a trade union official means you agree with everything they say. …we should absolutely avoid sharing a platform with any trade union official at all costs..it will show the world that if you sit in a hall with a trade union official you must be in agreement with them. ..but there is history to this…sharing platforms with labour mp’s over racism..when we know that the Labour Party goes along with racism and mp’s earn much more than the workers…drive the reformist running dogs of capitalism out should be our slogan..sparky you are right…why not picket a few of the Tony Benn film showings…lickspittle of the ruling class that he was by being a labour mp..sparky, I am sure you will agree Russell brand being a multi millionaire should not be allowed to have a platform with anyone…why not write an article for rs21 on why Brand is a rich bastard and sharing a platform with him in any circumstances is a complete disgrace..in fact Sparky you should be the only one to speak as you seem to have uncanny knack of spotting opportunism from 100 miles away..we will be in safe hands…where is the telephone box we are meeting in?
oh well James,
I suppose it will all be alright once you get to sit down with Billy Hayes (CWU) at the UtR conference.
You can talk about the wonderful things that can be done on a £100,000 salary.
I’m sure with your love of fantasy and such a strong imagination you can break the poor man’s lack of confidence.
The revolution is just around the corner!
Sparky you are right..the swp leaflets and it’s paper and inside the union over post office privatisation argued not to fight and to go along with the leadership and not rock the boat..and in unitie it argues to wait for labour and Grangemouth was not worth fighting and the union leadership were correct, in unison it says it was right not to have a local govt strike and is absolutely not in the thick of building resistance to Prentis , the swp has done nothing to build solidarity with care uk, ritzy, Lambeth college or st mungo strikers, I have heard they occasionally go to picket lines and tell them to give up..indeed it supports the bombing of Iraq, Syria and anywhere else in the world I can think of..you are right Sparky the swp is in the pay of the CIA, FBI , Mossad and Putin and has the cheek to have an appeal …the only thing we need is Judge Renton..that’s right he openly admits he wants to be a high court judge in family cases!..Judge Renton is right we should ignore public sector workers because teachers have it easy and are not dockers…Sparky you are so right.
Soviet Goon Boy described pretty well the degeneration of the SWP, but was much less clear on the reasons for it.
One of the issues he lists was an alliance with the left wing of the Trade Union Bureaucracy. It is here that the answer lies to the break up of the SWP.
Cliff (and Lenin) believed that you have to tell the truth to the class.
Billy Hayes (UCW) has been invited to the UtR conference. This is the man who sold out the postal workers in their fight against privatisation and then pushed a no strike agreement.
The line that the union leaders want to fight reminds me of the emperor with no clothes.
SWP distorts Lenin
What on earth is meant by ‘Leninism’ in this discussion? Michael Rosen maintains a coherent position here (and retains his public dignity while his anonymous adversaries seem more intent on displacing their own uncertainties) but even he sometimes conflates Leninism with specific organisational forms and internal political cultures.
Lenin decisive leadership changed socialism from an ideal to a practical question of power. Wherever capitalist production relations have been displaced it has been with the decisive intervention of a leninism that bears no relationship to what passes for such in this discussion.
The essence of Leninism is not found in the bureaucratic parodies of it that pass for it in Britain’s rrrrrevolutionary left (or the libertarian reaction) but in the real struggle for power and in actually winning it.
Both the ‘heritage’ SWP and its schismatics appear to make the continuation of the ‘SWP tradition’ their principal objective. But failed models are only useful if we learn as much from their failures as from their successes
This is not a reply to either anonymous Ray or anonymous James who’ve done more to consign themselves to the dustbin than I could. Fingers crossed that they don’t reply to this post. In fact, given that this isn’t an SWP site, it’s a bit bizarre that they’ve spent so much time and energy arguing with me here. I can only assume that they think they’re doing their organisation some favours by doing so!
“Is Leninism dead?” – consider this last period in which several marxist groups claim the Leninist heritage, while one of those capitalist crises that marxists have been talking about for the whole of my life. In terms of public noise i.e. who is heard in the media for critiquing this crisis – how well did these marxist groups do? I consider myself as part of this tradition. (incidentally, anonymous James seems incredulous that I should be ‘obsessed’ with the SWP. If he figured it out for a moment it’s because of my sense of betrayal. I thought that people I grew up with in my post-Stalinist background would safeguard this marxist tradition when in actual fact they let it ossify and ultimately become self-serving. See goon boy’s analysis as linked to by Bill, above).
As evidence of this ossification or the ‘bypass effect’ if you like, is the kind of noise made in the public space about this crisis. This, of all times in the whole of my life, would have been the perfect moment for when the arguments put forward by marxists would come to the fore. How interesting then, that what has happened is that the ones being heard are a mix of people thrown out or who resigned from the marxist groups – Seymour, Galloway – or who weren’t part of it – Brand, Lanchester, Picketty – or who displace it through comedy – Hardy, Steel, Revell….
I’m sure I’ve missed out people and phenomena here…
I’ll stick with goon boy’s account, thanks.
Think this thread has served its dubious purpose
Micheal ..lets do it one more time…the accused was suspended from working for the party and not membership..this was a mistake, it is acknowledged as a mistake and it has been said to be a mistake…does this invalidate the whole history of the SWP and attempt to build a revolutionary party and use a democratic centralist method of organisation, in my view no it does not. Michael, you seem to not agree with that type of structure for an organisation, fine but don’t pretend that you have found some holy grail which proves the SWP wrong.
Now, you have refused to say what you would do if the person making an allegation does not rescind that allegation. It would appear , your view is that the organisation should do nothing and the person the allegation is against returns to membership. In effect a women making the allegation should either go to the police and if thaey choose not to, no investigation should be undertaken by the organisation.
Imagine if the SWP said to the person making the allegation, because you do not wish to go to the police we are going to do nothing…you would be jumping up and down crying foul..anarchists would be attacking SWP stalls, the right wing press would have hounded SWP members outside their homes..and yes I would suggest you would have carried on attacking the SWP as you do now.
This isn’t about suspending then reason from membership as well as paid employment..that is pretty transparent from your increasing obsession with the SWP. Have no idea what organisation you are in or have been I the past but I would suggest you perhaps start to aim your fire on the real enemy which is souring working class politics across Europe.
Re-reading Soviet Goonboy there, I really should step aside and wait for anonymous James and anonymous Ray to try to answer SG’s points.
anonymous Ray, you’re getting rattled again. Delta was not suspended when the allegations were first made. I have looked and looked and not found an explanation from the SWP as to why they did not use the suspension procedure. All I’ve seen is the ludicrous and ultimately unsavoury ‘apology’ which ends up apologising for there having been a dispute in the party! This dissipates the apology to the complainant so that it is ultimately meaningless. That is a form of oppression. Calling me ‘imperious’ is yet another example of your bringing your personal hang-ups into the matter. The thing is, Ray, your party has called for unity. One of the bases for unity is trust. Everyone knows that your party fucked up. What’s bizarre is that as a party of theory it seems to be beyond them to use the very same tools that they use day in day out on all matters under the sun, political, economic, cultural but seem unwilling or unable to use them on themselves. That strikes me as an obstacle to unity. Anyone can apologise (or think they apologise. Anyone can say, oh yeah, we got it wrong. Much, much harder is to say, why or how this was possible. And the point is if you can’t figure it out, then why wouldn’t something similar or analogous – nothing to do with this particular kind of episode – happen again? The point is that the same structures and the same personnel – bar a few resignations – are still there! You haven’t even moved the deck chairs!
Thank you, Bill, yes, I’ve read goon boy’s stuff. And a lot of another analysis from outside the SWP. I was interested to see if either anonymous Ray or anonymous James could find a marxist analysis of why the party did not use the suspension procedure. Thanks to you, I will go back to them as a reminder of what the SWP could do if it wanted to.
Michael – there was some pretty sharp analysis as events unfolded, just not from inside the SWP (e.g., http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/this-is-the-way-the-party-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/ and http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/once-tiberius-is-dead-i-sejanus-will-rule-as-emperor-in-rome/)
This was an issue you and James discussed. I have no idea about LMHR so you’ll need to contact them or perhaps one of the many musicians, bands and other individuals and groups who were involved with LMHR during that period. As far as I’m aware he was removed from any position in the SWP and UAF when the allegations were made.
“However, please, please, please could you be kind enough to NOT reply to this till you’ve dug up that link for the explanation for why suspension of the accused was not used?”
Dig it up yourself! I’ve already searched and linked to an article about Savile’s abuse that you wrongly claimed the SWP ignored. You could have quite easily found this yourself if you hadn’t been intent on trying to use these issues to falsely discredit anyone who disagrees with you. I am not on trial here so modify your imperious tone if you want to carry on a debate.
Michael, some questions are unanswerable.
I agree. But some are answerable. On this occasion, all the data is there. Many enquiring minds in place. People who claim to be able to analyse daily events in the light of theory. And vice versa. Simple problem: such people knew of suspension procedures. They chose not to put them in place. Why? What stopped them? What ideological or structural blockages were there, to prevent them?
And secondarily, what ideological or structural blockages are in place now for them to not make those explanations?
A marxist silence.
If there was no explanation ever given as to why suspension was not used, can anyone explain why no explanation has ever been given?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used ?
Or anyone else?
By the way, don’t let me distract you from looking up that link but I so-o-o did NOT say this:
“…the person should be suspended, correctly, but then move to a counselling service and mediation…” I so-o-o- did NOT argue this.
I have said many times, including on my blog, 1) Suspension of the accused 2) help and support for the accuser 3) wait and see. (time limit to be agreed in the organisation’s regs) 4) if the accuser wants to take it further, point out that an organisation like a political party or a school etc can NOT and should NOT try to ascertain what happened through questioning the accuser or the accused. 5) if the accuser wants to take it to the police, that, as present constituted, is the only system available in society as we know it.. 6) if the accuser doesn’t want to take it further then it has to be assumed that the accused is innocent or ‘doesn’t have a case to answer’ and can be reinstated. If that’s a problem,, perhaps perhaps perhaps, some kind of mediation might, possibly, help. Possibly. Possibly not. If it can be done in a ‘safe’ way, so all parties are protected, it could in some rare circumstances work. Possibly.
In the case of the SWP, as justice wasn’t done vis a vis the accusers nor by the accused, do not assume that I’m suggesting jumping to number 6.
However, please, please, please could you be kind enough to NOT reply to this till you’ve dug up that link for the explanation for why suspension of the accused was not used?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used ?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used?
Great – thanks for that one.
http://socialistreview.org.uk/376/roots-child-abuse
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for Savile, Hall, Smith, Harris? (Thanks, I’ve got the Rotherham one.)
Michael, all in was saying was that there are all sorts of options but it is easier to chuck something in as a common sense way to proceed but when looked at it turns out to be not so straight forward. I don’t mind you suggesting xy or z but you should be accepting of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of your suggestions.
You have said the swp should have suspended the accused and this has been agreed by the review as something which should have happened. When you say marxist analysis is you seem to mean the SWP says we are wrong to have a democratic centralist organisation and we should abandon this way of organising.
You did argue that the person should be suspended, correctly, but then move to a counselling service and mediation etc..ok the straight forward question is what if the allegation stands..what do you do?
What difference are you alluding to between the Rotherham and Savile cases? Adult males using coercion and threats of violence in exchange for sex with minors. Multiple cases of abuse over decades involving a number of colluding perpetrators. The failure of the state to act on the concerns of local services and allegations made by victims of this abuse for decades.
The rape allegation in the SWP were not made by a minor in contrast to Rotherham and the Savile cases. The SWP took these allegations very seriously at the time they were made and tried to address them.
By the way when it comes to providing links, I mentioned how the SWP ‘apology’ for what happened. I said that it ‘equalised’ the apologies. Here’s the statement that I’m referring to from December 2013:
Start:
“Furthermore the central committee (CC) made a statement that many people have suffered real distress as a result of taking part in or giving evidence to the disputes committee, or due to slurs on the internet and we are sorry to all of them for that.
Specifically two women who brought very serious allegations suffered real distress.
We are sorry for the suffering caused to them by the structural flaws in our disputes procedures, the way in which the two cases became a subject of political conflict within the party and slurs on the internet.”
End
So, ‘many people’ suffered ‘real distress’ and ‘two women’ suffered ‘real distress’.
‘We’ are also ‘sorry’ that the two cases became ‘a subject of political conflict’!
So, in the end everyone is apologised to!
That’s one way in which oppression is carried on…
Yes of course I was the first to raise the matter of counselling! It was a conciliatory afterthought that I threw in for situations in which a) the accused had been suspended and b) the accuser had withdrawn the complaint. It was meant to be no more than a small post crisis suggestion. In actual fact, if I ask myself why I suggested it, it’s because several SWP members came to me and said ‘There was no rape.’ So, in my conciliatory mind I thought, well if that’s the case, and if the complainant did withdraw the complaint, how could an organisation like the SWP resolve the matter? Because it sure ain’t resolved at the moment in the movement as a whole…but I was running ahead of myself. As I say, it was an afterthought not a strategy and it’s a red herring to suggest that I thought it was.
Could you please provide the link for the marxist explanation as to why the SWP did not suspend the accused, given that that is customary procedure in the outside world?
Could you please provide the link for the marxist explanations for Savile, Hall and Smith? ( NOT ROTHERHAM as the situation is completely different. )
“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?”
In the NHS, if there is a concern that domestic violence, child abuse or rape has occured then with or without the service users consent NHS services have a statutory responsibility to involve the police and other appropriate agencies such as social services. State funded services have different responsibilities concerning how these cases are handled than trade unions and political parties. Unless there are concrete proposals rather than a list of services that are assumed to do things better then it’s not a serious proposal.
The problem is that there’s no simple, “One solution, resolution!” to these complex cases. Policies that are used in the NHS might not be suitable for other organisations. Even in the NHS different services have different policies depending on regional and local policies and changes developed through practice. Protecting vulnerable people has changed significantly in the NHS even over the last 15 years and is always undergoing review. For example, domestic violence is treated much more seriously now than it was 15 years ago. Mistakes are made and then reviewed and hopefully corrected. If a huge organisation with enormous resources and highly trained practitioners like the NHS sometimes gets it wrong and has to learn from these mistakes then is it any wonder that other organisations sometimes encounter the same problem?
“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.”
Looking back over the thread the subject of counselling was first raised by Michael. Concerning the Savile and Rotherham cases there are many overlapping issues such as the failure of the state to intervene due to the class background of the victims, the continuing sexual objectification of young children and women in capitalism, police corruption etc. Many of these issues have been subject to a marxist analysis in various articles in SW, SR and, more thoroughly, the ISJ.
“concerning’ not “conceding”
Not in reply to James, but as general consumption:
1. We know that the SWP has a given structure.
2. From within that structure when faced with an accusation conceding one of its senior members, it chose not to follow customary procedure of suspending the accused.
3. it chose not to follow customary procedure when it took it upon itself to interrogate the accuser.
4. The SWP has conceded that by not suspending the accused, it took a wrong step.
5. I’m not sure whether it has ever conceded that it was wrong to interrogate the accuser.
6. I personally have not read a marxist explanation from the SWP as to why it chose to not apply customary procedure re suspension and interrogation.
7. My suggestion re mediation was only ever intended as an afterthought about how organisations of any kind can or might possibly sometimes resolve issues once (and only once) suspension has taken place, once and only once the accuser has withdrawn the accusation and only if all parties concerned are agreed.
One thing first off – you’re lying. I didn’t say that the SWP should have used mediation in this process. I said that in these circumstances sometimes when (in the scenario that I mentioned where a) the accused is suspended and b) where the accuser withdraws the accusation) mediation can be of use – GIVEN THE SUSPENSION, GIVEN THAT THE ACCUSER WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT WHAT TOOK PLACE THAT TIME. You or your anonymous colleague were the ones who mentioned possible counselling organisations, not me. I in no way stated or intended that mediation was a first stage process or a second stage process. Anyone reading what I wrote above would have to be malicious to state that I was demanding that this be a requisite part of discipline procedures where the accusation was what it was. I was simply lobbing it in as a possible process once all other avenues had been pursued and only if all parties chose to go down that alley. Only you know why you chose to misrepresent me this way.
When you’ve withdrawn your lie, I will be happy to carry on this discussion. If you don’t want to, we can stop now.
Michael
You presented what you said was a self evident course of action. I simply enquired what your response was to some queries. You stated that mediation and counselling should have been brought in to resolve the issue. I simply raised what I thought were real problems with such an approach. You have not responded to any of these points. So if you think mediation and counselling was such an obvious way to proceed and was commonly used in the labour movement asking for examples of the common practices should have been too difficult to respond to. Your only response is to say the person making the allegation may after time and suspension stop making the accusation and then the person who is the accused returns to party membership. So in this scenario no investigation has been undertaken. Also what if the person does not wish to remove the allegation of rape..what then?
I would suggest that the tone and content of your response is that you have no evidence that unions use such a procedure simply because it is untenable as a way to respond to this sort of accusation. So what started out as a very simply way to proceed appears to be anything but. It is easy for someone to say why did you not do this or that…but surely they must be prepared to seriously look at their suggestion and complexities of dealing with an allegation of rape.
You talk of why the SWP has a slate system of electing the CC. Well the short answer is that there has been much debate over this on I think at least 2 maybe 3 conferences of the SWP and debate on either side was had..the vote was to remain with that system of election. The arguement for this method is that when one elects a leadership of th party we are electing a collective leadership. Now, as has happened alternative slates which is effect remove single or impulsive members of the CC are open to people and indeed have been moved in recent years. Now my personal view is that it is certainly not as matter of principle and I wouldn’t be against moving to an individual method of voting and have voted for motions arguing for such a change. At present the majority of delegates to the SWP have voted to continue with the present method.
In terms of full time organisers and cttee it depends what cttee we are talking about.
Central cttee..elected at conference by delegates from branches..full timers do not have a vote at our conference
Disputes cttee.. Will be elected at conference. This will include members of the cc but think this is usually around 2 or 3 with around 8 pr 9 members of the party who are not full timers…elected by conference delegates.
National cttee..I think ipthis has 50 members..elected at conference by delegates..no full time workers for the party are members of the national cttee and if they attend they are not allowed to vote.
The issue of not suspending but removing from be a paid worker of the SWP in the case referred to was a mistake. This has been acknowledged.
To finish..Michaels suggestion of mediation is not used by any labour movement body and if the SWP had done this I have little doubt he would be typing furiously how we thought we should do this and didn’t we know no trade union would have behaved in such a way etc etc. the SWP is not infallible and yes mistakes were made.
Lastly, Michael says the person was interrogated.notice the word, not discussed with, not interviewed but interrogated…now that is an attack I would suggest on Pat Stack as he was the chair of the disputes cttee and if he allowed the person concerned to be interrogated then it is a serious matter and obviously one which would need to be investigated. Perhaps Michael should discuss this with Stack and enquire why he led an interrogation as chair of the disputes cttee and not an interview or discussion.
….and if it was wrong not to have suspended the accused, why, even though this was a known and accepted procedure, wasn’t it used? (marxist analysis please).
(forget the mediation, if it’s causing you high blood pressure, and you want to sound terribly knowledgable – even though the knowledge doesn’t seem to have been used at the time…)
‘scenario’ not ‘cenario’
Possible cenario, James…after the waiting time, and suspension…the accuser doesn’t go on with accusation. Organisation suggests under no obligation to either party supported INDEPENDENT mediation to help resolve the issue. OK?
In the meantime, could you explain to potential recruits (like me, in theory) how the slate system works, and what the regs are on full-timers being on committees. And the marxist explanation for these two rules.
and on closer reading, having explained to me why mediation isn’t possible, you explain to us that it is. But you’ll remember that what actually took place was a) no suspension and b) interrogation of accuser. Fail, fail. And that from people who knew of alternatives but chose not to use them. Why? Where is the marxist analysis of why they chose not to use them? Link please. And why, if that was wrong, how come it was right once and then became wrong? Marxist analysis please. Link please.
Michael, where have I said marxist leninists always get it right?
You have suggested mediation in relation to an allegation of rape. I have never known in all my years where this has happened in relation to an accusation of rape. If you can give one example from say the trade union movement then it would helpful to know. Mediation seems to me to be about finding a way opposing parties can move on. Well surely this is not applicable to accusations of rape. I have not heard the arguement to go to arbitration from any other person involved in the very long arguement which took place inside the SWP so maybe it’s not so obvious or as straight forward as you portray. It is acknowledged and recognised that suspension should have happened. The review of the complaints procedure was wide ranging and indeed did look into how trade unions deal with such matters. I am not aware of any trade union if a member of its staff were accused of rape would suggest mediation. If you could provide a link to a union that does that it would again be helpful. I have been involved in the labour movement for some time and do not lead a sheltered life etc so I am interested if it is common for unions to use mediation in relation to accusations of rape.