[Marxism] Bureaucracy and degeneration in small left groups

[Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Someone wrote:
>>the SWP in Britain is reckoned to have around 1200 real members with
around 100 full-time organisers of various kinds. This kind of ratio
indicates large-scale corruption (the CP had this too but in a different
way). These people are all beholden to the Central Committee for their
jobs
so the vitality of party life must naturally be circumspect.<<


Tom replied:
>I've come across this type of argument before, and I don't feel it's
true.
Full timer jobs in left groups are not such a great career that dissent
is
going to be dramatically stifled by fear of the sack. Considerably more
important is political peer pressure and a sense of esprit de corps and
"cabinet solidarity" among the full timers.

>Neither do I think being top-heavy with full-timers necessarily has
anything to do with corruption, let alone
"large-scale" corruption. The problem is much more that you create a
dominant layer of people whose material position is different to that of
the working class. Or in a little group, it's more meaningful to put it
in
terms of unreality: full timers live in a hot house environment.
Admittedly
their different position can sometimes be a plus, since they are less
subject to the conservatising pressures of the workplace. The point is
that
having too many of them tips the balance in an unhealthy manner.



I agree with Tom and don't think there is any material gain at all for
full-timers.  I worked f-t for the Socialist Action League in NZ (local
moon of Planet US SWP), was paid the same as the dole and worked 11 days
out of 14 for the organisation as well as carrying out ordinary
paper-selling and other work.

If anything what happens is that it is the material deprivation of
full-timers which pressurises them into becoming hacks.  When you're
making the kinds of material sacrifices that *most* full-timers - ie
apart from the Great Leader - are making, you have to believe it is
worthwhile, and that acts to dampen your critical faculties.  There can
be a tendency to see opposition as a threat and an attack on all who are
making these personal sacrifices.

There is also the other aspect of the hothouse environment which Tom
refers to.  The full-time apparatus is like a machine that operates
according to its own laws, rather than serving the class struggle.

In my case, I was very young, the youngest full-timer at the time by far
- and so I still had a lot of idealism and naivete.  Working full-time
certainly soured that, as I saw quite a lot of things, from physical
assault to ritualised bullying, that made me realise there was quite an
unhealthy culture in the leadership of the organisation. 

I regret not having done more about this culture at the time, although I
was the main author of an early opposition document (on the gay
question), supported by a majority in the Christchurch branch.  However,
I never raised my voice over the violent assault about two dozen of us
witnessed, because I naively assumed that the central leadership would
do something about it and suspend the national secretary who carried it
out.  In fact, the thug's position in the organisation was strengthened
(he was one of the cabal that Barry Sheppard encouraged to replace
Hector MacNeill).  Also, I never voted for anyone's expulsion or took
part in anything that I have reason to be embarrassed or ashamed of -
another reason I remain sceptical of people like Sheppard.

I agree with Tom that the main problem with large full-time apparatuses
in small left groups is that it tips the balance in an unhealthy manner.

Phil

   







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