23.03.2006

No names

As a delegate at this year's SWP conference, I was generally supportive of John Molyneux and his alternative slate for the central committee.

After attending the Saturday January 7 sessions, I came home and logged on to a leftwing web-board and answered some questions from non-SWPers about how it had gone. I told people the votes for and against Molyneux and the central committee slates and I also mentioned the names of three comrades who had spoken.

Three days later I was rung by Martin Smith, who told me that I was a in a lot of trouble - I had broken party discipline and I was suspended. He talked about the security dangers of mentioning members' names in these sorts of forums.

I responded that the comrades concerned were pretty well known - they had stood in elections, had even written books for the party. Also, other SWPers had mentioned their names on the same web-board previously, but there had been no question of disciplining them.

I was so shocked, I resigned on the phone and I didn't dispute my expulsion further. When bureaucratic things like this happen to young members, they could easily be turned off left politics altogether. Some SWP members I have spoken to are of the opinion that I was treated harshly and say they would have defended me if I had taken it further with an appeal. But, frankly, I wasn't interested in staying in this party after being treated like that.

I have spoken to people who are not part of the organised far left and no one could believe what had happened. They think it was crazy. Especially as socialist parties are supposed to be more democratic than mainstream capitalist parties. But the truth is they aren't.

The SWP has always talked up its anti-Stalinism, especially during the cold war. But this sort of incident makes the SWP look Stalinist, especially in their treatment of the rank and file. It can only produce disillusionment, especially amongst younger, more inexperienced party members.

Matt Kidd