Mr. Scruffles thinks the SWP should be politically confronted by being shouted down (“‘Zap’ the SWP?”, Solidarity 285), e.g., when SWP members are speaking at events and demonstrations.
She sees this as a way of holding that organisation to account, as a tactic that many people are on board for (and thus is effective). It is not really “no platform”, she says, but is more equivalent to a direct action tactic of “zapping” — “shaming” people over something specific (in the case of the SWP, over its handling of a rape allegation against a leading member).
Our difference is not over whether the SWP should be held to account — they surely should be. But is this the right way to go about it?
Direct action is good but, in my view, it should have a reasonably defined and clear purpose that does not undermine other things you want to do. On those points, “zapping” fails.
Is the point that every SWP member should feel shame at the behaviour of their organisation? Fair enough. But we also have to understand why they don’t already, or do not openly state it. Some may be cynical, but others will be naive, defensive, reluctant to give up on a project they sincerely believe is changing the world for the better, or believe that the SWP has learned lessons from these events. In other words, SWP members are human beings. Tactics such as this — aggressive, physical rather than verbal — are likely to make those SWP members more defensive and less likely to be convinced they are wrong.
There is a case for not inviting particular SWP members (e.g., its leaders, those most responsible for the recent abuses of power) onto labour movement/campaign platforms. But in most cases, this tactic is not being used selectively, it is being used against all SWP members. We should try to convince SWP members to think again, not to defend their organisation — to fight to change it, or leave.
Is this tactic primarily about the fact that activists, women activists especially, do not feel “safe” (comfortable and happy participating in political activities) while the SWP is around? I can sympathise with this feeling, up to a point. But, I repeat, most SWP members (and even their leaders) would be mortified to think that their organisation triggers such a feeling. The likelihood of them replicating such abuse must be very small.
If it is the presence of SWP members, as individuals, which makes us feel genuinely unsafe we ought to refuse to work with them if there are SWPers in our workplaces, stop our children from going to their homes, cross the street to avoid them. Or is it the SWP as an organisational entity? It is just not clear.
There are three other things which make this tactic wrong.
First, since it could be used as a shaming policy against any SWP member, it is possible that it will be used against those who have themselves suffered sexual or other violence. Statistically, it is likely. To “zap” such people is wrong.
I also think it is wrong to use aggressive behaviour against people who have less power than yourself. Older people should not shout at young people for instance. We risk repeating the “abuse-of-power” failings of the SWP.
Second, this tactic is likely to hinder rather than help create an atmosphere where people who have suffered violence, abuse, and bullying feel they can come forward and be supported to speak out.
Third, how widespread do people who advocate this tactic want it to be? How long will it last? If it goes on for any length of time it will be, logically, a genuine “no platform” policy for the SWP. It will treat them as if they were an organisation akin to fascists. Unarguably they are not. That would be a very authoritarian policy. It will give succour to the right who care nothing for our civil liberties, who want to ban, proscribe, suppress, and depict the left as “extremists”.
We find a situation where the SWP seem to be “getting away with it” frustrating? Okay. Let us then discuss and democratically agree upon tactics together (and where exactly was “zapping” discussed and decided upon?)
Let us think how to reach SWP members (reportedly more are thinking of breaking away). We could organise a protest/lobby/leafleting outside Marxism this year and much else.
“Zapping” is not the way to go.
