‘The discussion in the Socialist Workers Party … was thorough and democratic. The preparations for the convention were carried out with absolute loyalty. The minority participated in the convention, recognizing thereby its legality and authoritativeness. The majority offered the minority all the necessary guarantees permitting it to conduct a struggle for its own views after the convention. The minority demanded a license to appeal to the masses over the head of the party. The majority naturally rejected this monstrous pretension. Meanwhile, behind the back of the party the minority indulged in shady machinations and appropriated the New International which had been published through the efforts of the entire party and of the Fourth International. I should add that the majority had agreed to assign the minority two posts out of the five on the editorial board of this theoretical organ. But how can an intellectual “aristocracy” remain the minority in a workers’ party? To place a professor on equal plane with a worker – after all, that’s “bureaucratic conservatism”!’
That comes from Trotsky’s Petty-Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party. The key is “The minority participated in the convention, recognizing thereby its legality and authoritativeness.”
But Richard Seymour’s not content with demanding the extension of debate on isolated policies. He is demanding the removal of the entire democratically elected leadership. This is a joke. It is a provocation. Richard Seymour and his camp want to be expelled or are so degraded they think any party would tolerate such indiscipline.
Trotsky goes on to say: ‘The majority offered the minority all the necessary guarantees permitting it to conduct a struggle for its own views after the convention. The minority demanded a license to appeal to the masses over the head of the party. The majority naturally rejected this monstrous pretension.”‘
There will be a continuation of debate on constitutional issues. They won’t go away. But, having lost a vote, a commitment to agreed priorities is imposed on the minority as well as the majority. What is not up for discussion is the framing of individuals without a shred of evidence. Those who want to go to the police are free to do that. Those who fess up to having no evidence one way or the other but want to frame someone as guilty to help the capitalist state are beneath contempt. They need to get a life.
Furthermore, as Trotsky explained, Leninist parties consider it a “monstrous pretension” for minorities to demand the right to appeal over the heads of the party membership to enemies of the party, such as those who employ entryist tactics into the Socialist Workers Party, such as the CPGB, and to the forces of law and order that paid Mark Stone Kennedy to infiltrate the environmental movement to sexually and psychologically abuse women, and frame them and their male and female friends and relatives with non-existent crimes! That is precisely what Richard Seymour has done. He does not give a toss about the reactionary politics of so many of these groups and individuals. He does not care that his cheerleaders include Lindsey German and John Rees who dismissed women’s rights as a ‘shibboleth’. They also defended George Galloway’s right to vote with his conscience and against a woman’s right to control her fertility. However, they monstrously overplayed their hand when Galloway made a mistake about what constitutes rape. What I mean by this is explained in several posts, including this one: https://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/george-galloway-bondage-consent-and-left-unity-screw-ups/
These people are not serious. The oppose the presumption of innocence. They need to be identified as a malignant tumor inside the SWP. They need to be treated accordingly.