RE: [Marxism] British SWP'er raises questions about internal functioning

["www.leninology. blogspot.com" <leninology@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is very interesting and I would certainly like to read Molyneux's
piece.  However, a note of caution:  Weekly Worker is notorious for
inaccuracy and often deliberate misrepresentation.  I have caught them in
this myself once or twice.  They are given to fabricating statements and
imputing them to leading members of political organisations they are hostile
to.

> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist
> tradition<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] British SWP'er raises questions about internal
> functioning
> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:16:02 -0500
>
> Weekly Worker 553 Thursday November 18 2004
> Call for democracy
>
> Hot on the heels of his diplomatically worded critique of the Socialist
> Workers Party?s intervention in Respect (see Weekly Worker November 11),
> veteran SWP leader John Molyneux has now turned his attention to the
> organisation?s own regime and culture.
>
> In this contribution to the Pre-conference Bulletin No2, headed ?Democracy
> in the SWP?, comrade Molyneux exposes the intolerance and monolithism of
> the leadership and, as ?a strongly committed member of the SWP?, calls for
> far-reaching cultural change.
>
> (snip)
>
> When the level of struggle is high and rising, the confidence and
> consciousness of workers rises through their experience of the collective
> power. This is ABC for us, but the point is that it applies inside the
> party too. In an upturn when members disagree with their party leadership
> it is often as part of a collective with an experience of common struggle
> (which doesn?t necessarily make them right, of course).
>
> In contrast, in a downturn the general experience of members is defeat and
> isolation, which makes it much more difficult to challenge the party
> leadership. When as a revolutionary socialist you feel your back is to the
> wall, defending your basic beliefs against what seems like a largely
> hostile world, it is hard to take on your own leaders as well.
>
> But this ?objective? materialist explanation of the problem, while true, is
> also not the whole story. On the basis of this objective situation the
> party has developed, almost imperceptibly, a series of practices which
> reinforce the dominant position of the leadership.
>
> One of these is the almost perfect unity and solidarity which the CC
> maintains in inner-party discussion. Whatever disagreements arise between
> them - and arise they must - they are kept strictly to themselves (apart
> from the occasional leak to close insiders), and a common front is
> presented at national meetings. As a general rule no CC member openly
> disagrees with another CC member, and all or most CC members combine to
> back each other up if anyone dissents. Moreover this internal solidarity
> has an informal but real tendency to extend to all those who work at the
> party centre. This cohesion obviously confers an enormous advantage in any
> dispute.
>
> Another such practice is the way sessions at conferences, councils, etc are
> organised: generally without motions from branches and with the speaker?s
> slip system. There are, of course, a number of good reasons for these
> procedures but they have the side effect of allowing the CC, through
> control of the slips, complete control of the order of debate. Certainly
> this is exercised with discretion - dissenters are allowed to speak - but
> the common pattern is that any serious political contributions are rapidly
> rebutted by several speakers from the leadership and, crucially, the
> dissident has no opportunity to reply.
>
> To give just one example: a few years ago at a party council, I disagreed,
> in just a couple of sentences, with the leadership?s estimation of the
> nature and size of the Birmingham demonstration to save Longbridge. My
> brief comments were promptly replied to by at least five members of the CC.
>
> Finally there has been the habit - fortunately much reduced of late, but
> still not entirely a thing of the past - of attacking people who disagree,
> aggressively and personally.
>
> The net effect of these practices has been (a) to load all debates
> massively in the leadership?s favour; (b) to make open disagreement at
> national meetings (as opposed to in private conversation) a highly
> disagreeable experience with little prospect of success. In other words it
> has been to deter dissent.
>
> Overall it has led to a conception of the many national and local meetings
> primarily, even overwhelmingly, as transmission belts for the dissemination
> of policy from the leadership to the membership rather than as
> opportunities for the members to determine policy or hold the leadership to
> account.
>
> Now is it wrong to raise such issues without proposing an alternative
> perspective? Not in my opinion. I don?t see why disagreement should have
> this ?all or nothing? character. I am a strongly committed member of the
> SWP and agree with all its basic politics, and with the main lines of its
> current policy and orientation, but I don?t think it is perfect, and from
> time to time I disagree with certain things. For when that happens I want a
> structure and culture which not only gives me the right to say so, but
> which also gives me the possibility, if my arguments are good, of having
> some success. Put it this way: just because the current general line of the
> party is correct does it matter if there are weaknesses in its democracy?
> Yes, because tomorrow the line, or aspects of it, may not be right and we
> will need a flourishing democracy to correct it.
>
> full: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/553/swpdemocracy.htm
>
> --
> Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism