 |
| John Studer (Source: The Militant/Phil Norris) |
John Studer, who is about my age, joined the SWP (Socialist Workers Party, aka the Party) before I did. Which means he's been a member of the Party for more than fifty years now! In that time he's risen to what I'll dub the Chief Competence Officer, i.e., he's the only guy still in the Movement who can actually get anything done. Accordingly, he's currently the Party's Campaign Manager and also the editor of The Militant (the Party's newspaper).
For all that, he has no genuine authority. The leading triumvirate of the Party is Jack Barnes, Mary-Alice Waters and Steve Clark, Comrades Jack and Mary-Alice are octogenarians and are showing signs of age. Comrade Steve is, I believe, a year or two younger than I am, but he has largely disappeared from the pages of The Militant, so I'll speculate he's in declining health.
The Big Three's gradual exit does not imply more authority for Mr. Studer, because the man has a minder--as if the Party doesn't trust him to make decisions. While Mr. Studer is The Militant's editor, a fellow named "Terry Evans" is assigned as "managing editor" (not to be confused with the business manager, who is Bob Bruce).
What does a managing editor do? I don't know, but I'll surmise he's kind of like the commissar in Trotsky's Red Army.
All work must be carried out in the presence of the commissar, but the primary command responsibility for specialized military decisions belongs not to the commissar, but to the military specialist who works closely with him.
The commissar is not responsible for the success of purely military operational or battle orders. This is totally the responsibility of the military commander. The commissar’s signature on an operational order indicates that he vouches for the fact that it was dictated by operational and not some other (counterrevolutionary) considerations.
Terry Evans' job is to make sure that Mr. Studer stays on the straight and narrow and doesn't do anything "counterrevolutionary".
Though it stretches credulity to think that Mr. Studer is at this stage of his career in any way disloyal. Still, occasionally (or rather frequently in recent years) The Militant changes its mind on some topic or another and needs to issue a correction or a retraction. That is, Terry Evans keeps comrade Studer on a short leash.
Which means Mr. Studer's real job is to be the fall guy. He's the chump who has to eat crow whenever anything gets past the editor's desk that shouldn't have. He may be the workaday editor of the paper, but the power behind his desk is Terry Evans.
I continue to think that "Terry Evans" is a pseudonym, likely for the very talented Brian Williams. My frequent commenter, John B., agrees with me about the pseudonym, though he might dispute the association with Mr. Williams. In any case, he has rather little respect for Mr. Evans. (See comments associated with posts here and here.)
Comrade Studer's chain got pulled in a dramatic fashion last November when he was forced to publish a major grovel (boldface mine).
The article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” appeared under the byline of Miami Militant correspondent Steve Warshell, but responsibility for its line and content lies with the Militant editor. The editor retracted the article and pulled it from the online edition as soon as the SWP National Committee pointed out that it was contrary to the longstanding positions of the Militant as well as those of the Socialist Workers Party. The print edition, however, had already been mailed to subscribers and distributors in the U.S.
The difference between Mr. Warshell's article and the replacement by The Militant is inconsequential. I covered the flap in detail here and here.
Our competent comrade is in the woodshed again recently because--in support of an SWP candidate in Pennsylvania--he is quoted saying this:
“We are supporters of the Constitution, as written and strengthened by dozens of amendments, many the result of pressure from the working masses; the federal system in the U.S., with three chambers of government and checks and balances put in place by the young coalition of merchants, slave owners and farmers on the backs of the American Revolution,” said Studer. “Of course it’s a bourgeois Constitution and government, but it provides space and powerful rights against government attack that are good for the working class and our struggles.”
This, apparently, is wrong, and the following week The Militant issued a 600+ word rebuttal.
The importance for working people in defending our constitutional rights and protections from government interference has been driven home by the Aug. 8 raid by the FBI, Washington’s political police, at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
Since the working class first began organizing to defend itself, free speech and assembly and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, to name but a few of the rights conquered in the Constitution, have been crucial. It is the utilization of these rights by millions in hard-fought class battles that has been integral to building unions, organizing opposition to Washington’s wars, bringing down Jim Crow segregation and fighting for women’s emancipation.
But that is far from the same as saying, as John Studer, the Socialist Workers Party campaign director, is quoted saying in the last issue of the Militant, that SWP members “are supporters of the Constitution, as written and strengthened by dozens of amendments.”
Put in my own words, the dispute boils down to this:
John Studer: "We are supporters of the Constitution as written and strengthened by dozens of amendments... "
The rebuttal: We are supporters of the words and concepts in the Constitution, especially as amended. But we don't like the Constitution itself because it was written by a bunch of old white men who were capitalists and slaveowners looking out for their own class interests.
This is really a distinction without a difference. Ultimately, who cares how or why the Constitution got written. The only important thing (which both Mr. Studer and the Rebuttal seem to agree on) is that it is likely the best such document in the world today.
I think there are two reasons for this fake dispute. One is the Party wants to put some distance (however small) between itself and the Republican Party, which it sees as its primary competition for members.
The second reason (probably more important) is to put Mr. Competence in his place. With a leadership struggle imminent, this is a preliminary skirmish for who is gonna take over after the triumvirate is gone. "Terry Evans", whoever he is, wants to make sure the Comrade Studer doesn't grab the brass ring.
Though for Communists generally, competence won't get you very far. Just look at the efflorescence of incompetence, cruelty and mediocrity that accompanied all successful revolutions to date: e.g., Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
John Studer doesn't stand a chance.
Further Reading:
Unlike Barnes, Waters and Clark, who have led the way in revising the SWP's historic program over the last forty years, people like Studer are hacks and hand-raisers. He doesn't have an original thought in his head. I don't know where "Terry Evans" fits in the SWP pecking order. He's an enigma, but I think you're right to surmise that he's somewhere between John and the ruling triumvirate.
ReplyDeleteI have some thoughts on the SWP's "Constitutional" conundrum. If I get a chance to organize them I'll share them with you.
So who was it that brought Evans into the leadership in the first place? He certainly didn't rise there on his own. I think I am among many who think he is from either Britain Australia or Canada, not a native US member. So someone had to decide to bring him here and put him in a position of prominence. Question is why? Did they absolutely need another hand on deck to get the militant written? Or as his being suggested, is he there to be waiting in the wings to take over when the triumverate fades away.
DeleteSpeaking of New Zealand, did you catch this? A few weeks ago they announced in The Militant they're consolidating their NZ and Australia operations. New Zealand is no longer listed in their directory. As usual whenever they shut down one of their branches, this is a "great step forward for the communist movement."
DeleteThe SWP and its politics have a long history in the region. The Socialist Workers League (later Party) in Australia and the Socialist Action League in New Zealand were both established around 1970 and grew to be rather influential organizations, by far left standards. The Australians broke with New York in the early '80s, with a tiny rump group loyal to the US-SWP forming the Communist League (the SWP-Australia later became the Democratic Socialist Party and later the Socialist Alliance). The New Zealanders stuck with the US-SWP through every faction fight and every twist and turn in the "party line," later renaming themselves the Communist League.
The SAL never had more than 100 members, but for a small country like New Zealand that wasn't too shabby. The Australian group, after splitting from the much larger SWP-DSP, has never been able to establish itself in the country. Nowadays neither organization has a newspaper, both selling the SWP-US paper The Militant.
I would guess that the New Zealand Communist League has no more than 10 members. The Australians are in even worse shape. I predict a dim future for the combined organization.
It's weird that nobody knows who Terry Evans is. I predict we'll find out within the next few months.
DeleteI vaguely recall reading about the closure of the NZ branch. Now there is a single branch for the entire southern hemisphere, which certainly does simplify the organization.
I still don't understand the French branch. With the Chunnel in place, it could easily be merged with London.
I would be interested in your "Constitutional Crisis" comments.
Is there a French branch? If they exist, their activities are never mentioned in the The Militant.
DeleteRe: The France listing in The Militant: For many years there have been one or two individuals in Paris (former members of the SWP) who pick up the mail at their P.O. Box. They also staff the Pathfinder table at the "Fêtes" sponsored by various left-wing groups. Other than that they engage in no political activity in France. There used to be a formal organization, the Communist League in France (not to be confused with the former "Ligue Communiste"), which existed for a year or two and then disappeared without a trace.
DeleteThe SWP/Pathfinder also have a few people in Athens who carry out similar activities, but for some reason Greece is not listed in The Militant.
As regards the question of the Constitution, I haven't had time to research it, but for some years The Militant has been making noises about defending "Constitutionalism," notably when Antonin Scalia died. They support undemocratic institutions like the Electoral College, the Senate, and even the Filibuster, which is not even codified in the Constitution but is a Senate tradition.
The historical position of the SWP has always been that it defends Constitutional rights, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and other Amendments that extend democratic rights, but it doesn't support the Constitution itself, which as you note was written by slaveowners and the nascent capitalist class to defend private property. Given what The Militant has been saying lately, Mr. Studer logically thought the position had changed and got slapped down for it. Such is life in "Barnestown."