I’ve had enough: Nick Bird Resigns From SWP

by leftist Thu Oct 11, 2007 09:40

Bird speaking of arriving at a National Council meeting of the SWP in London remarks: "On arrival we received a document containing all the main documents so far published in the Respect debate - from the SWP central committee, John Rees/Elaine Graham Leigh, George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Alan Thornett/John Lister, plus (for good measure) a view from the SWP in Ireland (an uncontroversial piece agreeing with the British leadership)."

I like the bit about the SWP in Ireland weighing in behind the leadership in the mother country. God forbid that they think for themselves!

by John Cornford Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:23

Nick Bird is interviewed for the Weekly Worker by Peter Manson. There is an extract below.

What for you is the best thing about the SWP tradition?

The whole emphasis on socialism from below - change comes from the self-activity of the class and that requires the most democratic means.

Many people have noted the contradiction between that and the way the SWP conducts its own internal organisation.

Yes, but I didn’t think that at the time. I am no longer in favour of the type of party the SWP has become, based on an interpretation of Leninism and an internal culture which is not sufficiently open or truly democratic. That is the view I have come to over the past four or five years.

There is no culture of discussion, there are no regular bulletins. While there is communication from the leadership, there is no forum for members to debate with each other. Connected to that is the ban on factions. Trade union fractions within the party do communicate amongst themselves and I am sure some larger branches have their own email lists. There are also some informal networks, but there is no official all-members list.

What measures need to be taken to overcome the democratic deficit in the SWP?

There needs to be an internal bulletin, forums for debate and members must be allowed to organise in factions or platforms. Conferences and national meetings need to be organised much more democratically. At present the central committee speaker introducing the discussion gets 30 minutes and everyone else gets four. But you can’t develop a sufficient answer to a complicated argument in four minutes. The whole thing ends up fragmented and the leadership has an inbuilt advantage.

by lisa - swp Sun Aug 10, 2008 14:13

the democratic deficits cited all pertain to the brit swp , the irish swp is a lot more democratic

by Yeti Sun Aug 10, 2008 15:11

Can you expand on the way the Irish SWP is more democratic? The impression given is thgat the SWP is run from London, with Keiran Allen being told what to do by the leadership there, and passing on the orders to the committee here.

Has anyone ever attended an SWP ard fheis and seen a vote for instance?

Can anyone remember an instance when the membership has publicly disagreed with the leadership on anything?