Anonamember has put his/her (I have a feeling, probably his) tuppence up online, I don't see why I shouldn't. If anybody's upset by this then I apologise... I'd still think this mind you, so there you go.
One of the problems with democracy is everybody’s for it (just as everyone’s against fascism). Any universally recognised good-thing tends to be overlooked as a given. We are all in favour of democracy, but what does that mean, ‘democracy’?
Marxists always point out democracy is not a formal thing, casting a vote, voicing an opinion etc. For example we are all entitled to free-speech. I have the right to free-speech and so does Rupert Murdoch, it’s just Rupert Murdoch is entitled to 40% of Britain’s daily print media.
Democracy, even the limited democracy we have today, is taking a battering. Why? In our society democratic participation requires two things, free time and disposable wealth (intellectual/educational wealth as well as material wealth). Even leaving aside the effects of the current austerity drive, people in Britain now work longer, harder and for less (proportionally) than they did 20-30 years ago as a result of ruling class policy. This has left less room for working class participation in public life. This has inevitable effect not just on big organisations like the Labour Party or the unions, but smaller ones too.
It's all very well being for more democracy, but where do we magic this democracy up from, and for what end? A common request: there should be a regular internal bulletin. This is great, and if it encourages discussion then lets go for it. The only trouble is I have a fairly normal work and home life. I have almost no time to read the preconference bulletins, let alone write a piece should the urge have taken me. I am not alone in this. What's to stop a regular bulletin from simply being a platform for litterateurs?
All this may not be good, but it is true. We are stuck with full-timers (boo! boo!) for the time being.
16 comments:
Hi, have you got a link to the article written about the SWP by an anonymous?
http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/guest-post-on-the-historical-experiences-of-is-and-swp-with-factions/
I left this comment on anonymous' article, thought I'd copy it here.
"If the part of anonymous’ article is true, which, having had experience of it myself, I think is;
…”the raising of questions at branch meetings is often frowned on by a section of the comrades who would appear to see any kind of questioning as disloyalty to the organisation and its politics.”
The party and many of its members have a brilliant track record of leading struggle, but the lack of interest and suspicion even that there is today of comrades who use the branch meetings as a place to ask questions and debate politics ( in order to clarify and strengthen party line) is surely an major problem that needs careful consideration.
I believe that the party, as an entity in itself, is being raised above and away from the class.
The democracy commission failed to make any changes in the situation or direction of the party. Probably because an internal beaucratic method will not solve this problem.
I have some ideas about what we might need to consider doing, I am sure some comrades know or can anticipate what I might suggest, but the heightened emotions that my suggestions are met with by some puts me off making them again for the time being. but I am sure that one day it will become glaringly obvious
An honest debate is as always very welcome, as a long term member of the party, I am confused about what is going on these days, I am desperate for clarity and for there to be a party with strength and vision, capable of leading people in the class struggle to victory."
There's three problems with Anonamember's piece:
(1) It's anonymous.
(2) There's ample outlet for this within the party.
(3) Ye gods it's windy!
More generally I'm frustrated with calls for democracy. It's one of the words people hide behind. Who can oppose democracy? Another example, permanent factions: no one ever explains what they are needed for. What are we going to permanently disagree about?
Yes, I completely agree about factions, I really struggled to get my head around it, thanks for clearing that up with your simple comment "What are we going to permanently disagree about?"
Isn't it therefore a question of why were and are factions being insisted on? What is it? What lies beneath it all? What is going on?
Surely it's not a question of Permanent Disagreement (could what we have now be thought of as Deflected Permanent Disagreement..?) but just disagreement that might take longer than 3 months to be resolved/take place outside the (pre) conference period?
Agree with the previous poster that there's a big need for dramatically increased openness of dissent/discussion etc. I'd see this as requiring formal changes (which is why I was gutted when the IBs before Party Council motion narrowly lost) and a more general cultural shift.
It's weird, I often get the sense that these things are frowned upon to encourage Unity/discourage splits, but I'd see the (pretty fecking damaging) splits that the party's been rocked by in the past few years as at least a partial consequence of the lack of openness/debate etc etc. Basically, it seems like if groups of people have vaguelly significant strategic (rather than just tactical) disagreements with the current line, they often don't see a way to resolve them without either keeping quiet or leaving.
Josherick: re Par 2 - don't forget to report that at your branch meeting.
Re splits - please let's not forget some key things about them. Split number one - the faction in question declared itself in good time, submitted documents, went along to aggregates - and consistently lost the argument by every constituted way of measuring it. Split two - the faction kept its head down and before going its merry way without submitting itself to any kind of debate or scrutiny. The connection, in both cases, was surely that leaders saw matters as winner-takes-all, either they had to lead the SWP or leave it. Beyond long-term fine tuning of the process of debate and decision making, there was very little that could be done for these factions to keep them in the SWP.
Back to the main point - will, for example, regular internal bulletins mean a thousand flowers bloom or just a thousand more trees end up pulped? Everyone's in favour of 'democracy'. Let's think through what is both realistic and appropriate.
Actually in split number 1 that faction had de facto been in existence for a number of years , a undeclared informal faction that made a pigs ear of running the party . Factions and tendencies out in the open , abiding by the rules and where we can see them is much healthier and makes for some proper debate and makes it clear where we're going . I was never clear about Respect ( still not ) . The decisions were made in secret and above our heads . I don't want to see that again .
I'm not wanting "permanent disagreement" , I just want the right to disagree between conferences . Just because there's a right to form factions doesn't mean it's mandatory to form factions . But it should be possible to do so if needed .
IBs would mean a thousand trees being pulped ? Haven't you heard of e-mails ? What harm would an IB now and again do exactly ? Maybe those of us not in the know and out in the sticks maybe get an inkling of what's going on .
The trouble is there's no legislating against crime - there's no way to make a faction that refuses to declare itself declare itself. Respect... well, I suppose was like one of those jokes; you had to be there to get it.
The right to permanent factions = permanent disagreement, in the same way the death penalty = executions. Permanent factions means the right for someone to advocate a certain position, no matter how many times its voted down, and still remain an SWP member. This is not easy to square with improved democracy.
Re pulped: it does not matter whether IBs are in paper form, electronic, morse code, carrier pigeon or smoke signals, the point is a medium by definition is exclusive. Either you're in it or you're not. The strong danger of internal bulletins is they short-circuit the process of discussion, reduce it to a circle of people with the time, energy and inclination to partipate. They are not in themselves an answer.
Disagreement is not necessarily a bad thing ;)
Believe it or not political disagreements do break out now and again between conferences . Now normally one would hope the NC would be the place to sort out such things but and then an issue may appear serious enough for some comrades to feel they have organise themselves around that issue . It is really very , very simple . And they should be able to do so . And it does help democracy . If the leadership does screw up between conferences they should be challenged .
And if there is secret factionalising then it should be cracked down on should it?
As for IBs short circuiting the process of discussion , what process of discussion ? You're argument that only people who have the time etc. can contribute etc. applies just as much to pre conference bulletins as well as IBs . Shall we do away with them as well ?
I want a culture of openess in the party , I do want more democratic debate . Anything that could avoid the screw-ups of the last decade by an unaccountable leadership would be a good thing .
Take the biggest screw-up,Respect . We've never had a proper accounting of that fiasco . Might be good if we did .
Permanent factions = permanent, institutional disagreement = the liberal right-to-my-opinion/the obligation to agree-to-disagree. We are not liberals and a darn good thing that is too. There must be a vote and that must be the end of the matter.
"As for IBs short circuiting the process of discussion , what process of discussion ? You're argument that only people who have the time etc. can contribute etc. applies just as much to pre conference bulletins as well as IBs . Shall we do away with them as well ?"
That or get to the point. There is no ultimate technological solution to increase democracy. The only sure fire way is to increase membership and participation. It would cut down both on unneccessary substitution on one hand and aimless griping on the other.
... not to mention theological debate.
Oh I'm all for getting to the point . Democratically of course :).
I just don't get the objection to IBs . A bit more debate if it's necessesary has got to be a good thing . And It's only a small change really .
It's a more open culture of debate where people aren't afraid to speak up when the leadership screws up that I want .
And I do agree that the best way to ensure democracy is to increase membership and participation but in the meantime I don't see why more debate in the party such as in IBs would do any harm .
Indeed, and I think, for the moment, we're not disagreeing about too much. I am against the idea that this or that institution will equal more democracy, it's not as simple as that. Such a notion is at best naieve at worst sinister. In the meantime more IBs will probably mean more people discussing spectres beneath the surface waiting to be made explicit and how we should seek to be a developing force that seeks.
"naieve..."? naive.
I think people should look to developing the branch meetings more rather than being so concerned with the centre.
Yes, there were problems around Respect, there were don't forget huge political events around that time e.g massive anti war demonstrations on a scale never seen before. That is what those events rested on, and it did mean that the party had to reorientate, all major political events will have such an effect on any party if they are attempting to relate to the class.
But actually a level of hostility and suspicion developed towards its own members, although that was something there from way back as I remember Cliff warning of this in the very last internal party speech he made. It has not gone away.
The hostility I experienced for example was toward comrades who use branch meetings as a way of clarifing and fortifying the party line, by questioning. Now when that hostility starts to happen at branch level, as well as requests being made for more internal bulletins etc the party is losing the plot.
It is orientating on itself, unable to deal with genuine questions and requests for clarification asring from the ever changing class struggle.
Now that there are largish and increasing numbers of ex members, it seems they are becoming a way that todays swp differentiates itself, ex memebers are a group of 'others' to monitored in terms of their right wing trending in comparison with themselves.
I think I will leave it here for now as I am sure this would have caused some moral upset and outrage.
I used to like an indie band in the 1980's called 'pop will eat itself' well to slightly alter that bands name and apply it to todays swp:- the swp will eat itself. I really don't want to see this happen, but comrades have to look closely at who they are serving.
Post a Comment