Richard Seymour’s friends set up a blog for all those trying to smash the SWP to pieces. They unconstitutionally published motions to the national committee saying they were only doing it because others had done it anyway. And how did these ‘others’ get hold of the motions, Richard? The same way they got hold of a transcript of the confidential SWP conference debates in defiance of the women you claim to care about so much? You leaked them, right?
Regardless of how Andy Newman got hold of these documents, examine how Richard Seymour’s faction respond to the central committee’s motion to the national committee and the outrage of SWP members as expressed in the overwhelming majority of motions passed by branches. This is what the Richard Seymour faction posts on the blog they say will defend the integrity of the International Socialist tradition of Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Harman. Here is the shit they shovel onto their blog after they had been reminded by the rank and file of the SWP about the scabbing across a Leninist party’s democratically determined picket line:
And no mention at all of women (“oppression” is an evasion) or–horrors!–feminism. A more bureaucratic nose-picking job could hardly be imagined. These people obviously feel quite high and mighty, beyond the reach of the scruffy lot they deign to rule.
None of this surprises me about any party obsessed with “Leninism,” as this is all old hat. Dark corners and concealed places are ideal for rapists. Welcome to the Vanguard.”
So the factionalist fan club of Richard ‘Leninology’ Seymour think democratic centralism is about launching a hate campaign against the democratically elected leadership of their party on the basis of Leninism being ‘old hat’? Interesting.
As for not mentioning women or oppression… What the fuck is Harry talking about? The ‘feminists’ that have to be tackled by the SWP are not champions of gender equality and women’s liberation. This is sheer invention and an attempt to throw mud in the eye of ill-informed readers.
What Leninists challenge is reactionary ideas that deny natural justice to men and women alike. Richard Seymour is the unelected spokesperson for an anti-Marxist group of malevolent, gossip-mongering groupies.
How does it further the interests of women’s liberation for Richard Seymour to frame innocent people, which is precisely what he is does, again and again and again.
Does Richard Seymour not recognise that women have husbands or boyfriends? At any rate, some of them do. Woman also have brothers, fathers, sons, nephews, male neighbours, male work colleagues. Most women will fall into one or more of these categories. Even those who don’t do have a heart. Women fight for justice and democracy, notwithstanding the anti-dialectical crap shoveled by Richard Seymour.
The idea that more than a tiny minority of women would dream of denying men the exact same presumption of innocence that they would demand for themselves; the idea that supporters of women’s liberation are in favour of collective punishment of every man indiscriminately, that they hold it to be a legitimate response to rape committed by an individual man to punish any other man regardless of culpability…. That is a pathetic smear against the overwhelming majority of women.
Those who deny due process have nothing in common with socialists. Such ‘feminists’ are poisonous to the genuine struggle for equality. Such ‘feminists’ have to be taken on and exposed as reactionary to the core regardless of whether they are women or, as is the case with Richard Seymour, an utterly pointless dick.