The SWP and the crisis: one thought.

Following up on the circulation of Alex Callinicos and Charlie Kimber's article on the crisis in the SWP:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=915

I would like to cite one sentence:

"After a serious investigation the DC concluded that rape had not occurred and that other allegations of sexual misconduct were not proven, and recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against the member involved."

a) the notion that a Disputes Committee of a political organisation is a suitable or appropriate group of people to carry out an 'investigation' of this kind is, to my mind, deluded.

b) the fact that this episode is described with language such as 'serious' and that matters were 'not proven' is itself deluded.

What I am saying here is not original or new. One way to ignore this repeated criticism is to pick on apparent or supposed 'political' errors of those, like me, who make this criticism. This is precisely what Alex and Charlie do later in the article. Whether this is knowing and cynical, is not clear.

One of the bitter pills of experience is to discover that people who are on the 'wrong' side can sometimes make 'correct' or accurate criticisms (and vice versa, of course).