Blog Wars! The SWP split on Socialist Unity

I've been checking Socialist Unity a lot lately: at first, it was the SWP's (and Respect's) lies over the anti fascist demonstration in Liverpool... but then something altogether juicier came along.

The possibility of a split in the Socialist Workers Party. Now that's something you don't see everyday.

First, there was Neil Davidson, with a charming submission to the pre-conference bulletin calling for more democracy in the SWP. So far, so good. Sadly, however, the opening of the report is a tad sycophantic; take the following problems Davidson lists with France: "a fascist leader with enough support to stand as a Presidential candidate, anti-war demonstrations in which Muslims and the Left march separately, and a set of legal restrictions on Muslims extending to prohibitions on wearing the hijab by female school students." None of these would exist, Davidson believes, if only France had an organisation more like the SWP. Errrr, right. But beyond the self-congratulation, however, the whole thing is pretty damn accurate. Davidson wants the SWP to face some inconvenient facts: it's not growing. It's shrinking. The party, which many people join, has an inability to retain members. And such delusions as claiming a further "2000 unregistered members" do not really help:

"A blood transfusion may keep a patient alive [Davidson writes] but if they are simultaneously haemorrhaging the procedure simply postpones death rather than restores health. Each wave of recruits has left embedded new layers of comrades, but many more have passed through our ranks. Had we had retained even half of the socialists who did so over the last thirty years we would now have an organisation several tens of thousands strong..."

Second to enter the arena was John Rees, recently nominated Enemy Number One by a large section of the SWP CC. Rees chastised the rest of the CC for not keeping to Cliff's method- exaggerating to overcome the natural "inertia" of ordinary party members. I wouldn't want to speculate on how many people have actually trawled through Rees' 8000+ words of self-important tripe, but like all of the recent SWP leaks, it's worth checking out for the comments. For some reason, SWP members don't seem to like anything that permits unsupervised communication between the party members and the rest of us wreckers, saboteurs and plebs.

Next up was John Molyneux. He rebukes the CC's "united front against dissidents" strategy, which has kept CC disputes faraway from the eyes and ears of SWP members, but ensured that SWP members who dare to speak out are not encouraged to do so again. Rather more observant than other senior SWPers, Molyneux observes the disparity between the decline in the party that the membership has been seeing for a long period of time (whether they admit it or not) and what the leadership has been claiming. For my part, I am reminded of SWP student organiser Andy Cunningham's own claims that Manchester's student population was experiencing "high levels of Bolshevisation"... That was a couple of months before the entire Student Respect branch was smashed. It is also reminiscent of former Swappie Mark Steel's forlorn observations before he left the party; that constantly being told there are 10,000 committed party members when there clearly bloody isn't, is "patently absurd".

And then along came Chris Harman- his response to Davidson is thankfully shorter than that of Rees. Self-important, yes, but mercifully rather brief (by pontificating old man standards): "If we do not deal with the causes of the feeling of malaise in the party, we will be unable to rise to the challenge of the new phase of capitalist crisis that opened up since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid September. And we cannot come to terms with the problems without widespread discussion".

Far more interesting than Harman's actual article, however, is the shock of some "Socialists" at Harman's newfound distaste for the Muslim Brotherhood and friends. As organisations go, they're a teensy bit nasty, you see.

Next to enter the faction fight par excellence was everyone's favourite leftist toff, Alex Callinicos, who really lays into John Rees. Take the following example of bitchiness (and remember: it sounds even better if you read it aloud in your best English Aristocrat accent): "John makes the mystifying statement that ‘There is no theoretical agreement on the CC about the likely depth and length of the recession.’ What’s puzzling about this is that John has said or written nothing of any substance about the crisis since the financial markets froze in the summer of 2007. Of course, in fairness, he has had other preoccupations, but it’s still news that he has any distinctive theoretical position". Saucer of milk, Alex?

But once again, the comments are even better than the actual document posted. 'Ray', an SWP luvvie supremo, actually says - with no trace of irony, I might add - that "the rest of the left, apart from the SWP, is in such a good state that it’s having to form united fronts of reformists and revolutionaries just to kick start some sort of redevelopment". United fronts of reformists and revolutionaries. We can only thank God the SWP wouldn't sink so low.

And then, last but determinedly not least, appeared Lindsey German's own take on the whole matter. Obviously, since the nomination of John Rees to the position of Scapegoat in Chief, German is quite literally sleeping with the enemy. So she's got a lot of defending to do. Oh, and in the process of it, she's gone a bit racist: "...if I had been elected to the London Assembly in 2004 (as I very nearly was) then the balance of forces in Respect would have been very different. If white socialists had been elected in 2006 in Newham and Tower Hamlets (as they very nearly were) then the balance of forces and level of politics in those areas would have been raised. If Gordon Brown had not flirted with calling an election in autumn 2007 then maybe Galloway would not have attacked so rapidly..." Has German confused the Socialist Workers Party with the Socialist Whites Party? Who knows.

So that's the lot. The Weekly Worker, in typically understated form, went for the "Mother Of All Splits" as its headline. Is it going to be the mother of all splits? Nah. It's more like a small flock of seagulls squabbling over the remains of a bag of chips.