SWP's calls for state censorship of the BNP are rather silly

[Saorsa]

From the current issue of 'Weekly Worker':


Callinicos rattled over no-platforming

<img width="440" height="220">
Things did not go according to plan for the SWP, writes Huw Sheridan

In the squash court beneath Wadham College bar about 40 students gathered on October 15 for an Oxford Socialist Worker Student Society meeting with Alex Callinicos, a leading member of the Socialist Workers Party central committee and noted academic, who was billed under the title, ‘Is capitalism still in crisis?’


Before comrade Callinicos spoke, we heard a few words from the Communication Workers Union local branch secretary, Paul Garraway, on the upcoming strike action. He described the militancy of his members and bitterly complained of persistent management bullying.


On to comrade Callinicos. Within a few syllables he, somewhat predictably, made clear that capitalism was still in crisis. He then outlined some of the factors underlying the current recession, and twinned this with some telling criticisms of mainstream economics.


His discussion of Marx’s concept of the state was relatively good too. And his most interesting points were made here, as he explored the contradiction between, on the one hand, the idea of the state as, in the words of the Communist manifesto, a “committeefor managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” and, on the other, competition between capitalists.


Comrade Callinicos described the United States as international capitalism’s “key organiser”, and went on to explore the possibility of another state assuming this position. In line with the thoughts of those such as Hillel Ticktin, he argued that at present it was hard to see China becoming a new hegemonic state. It is just too tied up with American capital. The great threat, Callinicos argued, was due to climate change.


The comrade moved on to the nature of the workers’ fightback. No mention of democracy, perhaps unsurprisingly. But also no mention of other key necessities, like an organised party of the Marxists. The nearest thing to a programme or strategy that Callinicos came up with was the call for “more and more workers to do what Lindsey and Vestas have done”. Let us leave aside for now the tincture of hypocrisy here - the SWP, after all, opposed the first Lindsey strike.


Most of the initial contributions from the floor consisted of fairly simple questions - some interesting and pertinent, some less so. There was a bit of ‘But my brother is a banker, and I don’t think he is a nasty person’.
Then my turn came. I emphasised that we need independent working class politics. I therefore criticised the SWP’s conduct in the Stop the War Coalition and its role in the preventing the affiliation of Hands Off the People of Iran and the “We are all Hezbollah now” slogans repeatedly chanted by SWPers on demos.


I also picked up on comments made by the SWSS chair of the meeting that the BNP “didn’t deserve a platform” and the no-platform dogma. Does Ukip “deserve a platform”? Do the Tories? And then there is the question of Unite Against Fascism’s popular frontist strategy. I reminded comrades of some history, of how the left’s calls for a ban on the British Union of Fascists backfired with the 1936 Public Order Act, which lost its legislative virginity by being wielded not against Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts, but against the left. It has likewise been heavily employed by the state against Irish republicans and striking miners.


Finally I argued that it was a fatal mistake to rely on the state and call for the BNP to banned. Once again it was a question of working class political independence.


My remarks on the far right dominated the remaining discussion. Chosen SWSS comrades were quick to wheel out the usual arguments for tactical inflexibility. Apparently, the BNP are just really nasty - Nazis in fact (and, as posters on the wall informed any in doubt, this was a “Nazi-free zone”).
A few seemingly new people quite rightly suggested that the blanket no-platforming policy - aside from not having worked, considering the growth in influence of the BNP - might not always be the best approach. We end up no-platforming ourselves. Quite reasonably they, perhaps representing the majority of those at the meeting, thought that there must be occasions when we could use the power of our ideas to defeat the simplistic and in many cases easily disprovable arguments of the BNP. There were plenty of nods.


The chair announced there was time for one more speaker. No hands were raised, so I stuck mine up. Callinicos gave some of the most emphatic head-shaking I have ever seen, and hissed something to the chair. “Um, we would prefer someone who hasn’t spoken yet,” the poor comrade then announced. So someone else, who had also spoken already, was chosen instead! Don’t you just love the SWP? Things did not go fully according to plan, however. The ‘anyone except him’ substitute likewise argued against auto-no-platformism.


In his summing up comrade Callinicos ignored the unfortunate fact that I exist and had dared to open my mouth. He managed to make the bad arguments of the young SWSSers even worse. “The BBC is publicly funded,” he informed us, descending into liberalistic mode. As if this somehow made this cog of the capitalist ideological apparatus a friend of the working class.
Any talk of debating with fascists rendered one a fool, he then emphatically declared. Presumably this must include his own comrade, John Molyneux. A loyal oppositionist in the SWP who has recently had the good sense to question the no platform mantra as being self-defeating. Interestingly, this viewpoint has gained some considerable support within the SWP, including on its national committee.


Obviously Callinicos is rattled and feels under attack even within. That is how I explain his response anyway. For him the only correct strategy when Nick Griffin appears on Question time is to get into the BBC and “punch Griffin on the nose or a more sensitive part of his anatomy”. But what then to do about the million who voted for the BNP in June’s Euro election and those who elected their dozens of councillors? Should they be forcibly silenced too? Should their vote be discounted?


As the meeting was about to close, a comrade (I am not sure if he belongs to any organisation) indignantly criticised the way the chair had refused to allow me to speak again. Surely a basic norm in a debate where one side has taken a lot of flak? Callinicos launched into a tirade. Apparently I had simply said nothing important - “something about the Stop the War Coalition that I didn’t understand,” he blustered. So I shouted: “I want to discuss Iran and the role of the SWP in the Stop the War Coalition.” Callinicos defensively retorted: “I am here from the SWP, not the STWC” and tried to change the topic. “Yes, the role of the SWP in the STWC,” I repeated. The chair quickly closed the meeting, and Callinicos scurried off into the night.




As SWP-provided bottles of cider were opened following the meeting most of the comrades were in fact friendly and more than willing to discuss. Myself and other Communist Student comrades were able to have some good exchanges. Clearly many in SWSS are genuine revolutionaries and have no liking for the way the SWP leadership refuses to debate with others on the left.

[Sam_b]

It always makes me wonder why the Weekly Worker constantly focuses on issues around other left groups than issues concerning the working class. Then again this makes more sense when I remember a CPGB member on a recent demo saying they don't really "care about the working class". Maybe because they're so alienated with the struggles that have been going on?

I'll try to respond to this nonsense tomorrow or Saturday.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I also think the SWP were wrong in calling for the state to censor the BNP on Questiontime, no platform is a tactic I support, but the BBC is not our medium to begin with, we're not reclaiming anything.

However who cares what the CPGB have to say, when they're not claiming the BNP aren't fascist they can be found saying no platform is a flawed tactic.

Read their recent shit about the EDL, apparently they're just "riff-raff" - another gem from the runt of the left litter.

[Saorsa]

Yeah I didn't post it because I think the CPGB are awesome (I don't), but I do agree with their analysis here, particularly this bit.


I reminded comrades of some history, of how the left’s calls for a ban on the British Union of Fascists backfired with the 1936 Public Order Act, which lost its legislative virginity by being wielded not against Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts, but against the left. It has likewise been heavily employed by the state against Irish republicans and striking miners.

[BobKKKindle$]

Neither at that meeting nor at any other point have the SWP ever said that the BNP should be banned. I should know, I am the chair they keep referring to.

[Prairie Fire]

I agree with Alastair.

Also, the SWP seems to be showing remarkable naivity, as they seem to see the BNP as divided from the apparatus of the bourgeois state rather than a part of it serving some function or another to the status quo (not unlike the American Minutemen) .

They also are reinforcing the view that the bourgeois state is the impartial arbiter of justice in society. :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Formation of Rees faction means SWP is on the verge of a split (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/790/formationof.php)


Are there real underlying differences between Rees and the leadership faction around national secretary Martin Smith, Alex Callinicos and Chris Harman? In a sense, yes. Simplistically it revolves around the question of ‘movement or party’, with Rees and co putting more stress on so-called ‘united front work’, and forever accusing the CC of underplaying the importance of the Stop the War Coalition, Unite Against Fascism, etc. Meanwhile Smith et al believe that now is the time for stopping the rot in morale and rebuilding the battered and denuded SWP branches.

In reality, of course, these are differences of nuance. They are not actually in contradiction to each other. The truth is that the SWP leadership is still smarting from the Respect disaster, the blame for which could conveniently be laid entirely on Rees. He did indeed bear prime responsibility, since he was the driving force behind the unpopular popular front with George Galloway, the Muslim Association of Britain and a clutch of Bengali businessmen. However the rest of the leadership were hardly faultless, with every one of them publicly backing the Respect turn.

Comrade Rees is not exactly a red-hot favourite when it comes to bets on the new leadership. His toppling was very popular among the overwhelming majority of SWP members, as demonstrated by the vote at party council - although, of course, he retains a small core of support, not least in the Stop the War Coalition. What we are almost certainly seeing are initial moves towards a parting of the ways - the expulsion of Rees and co or a Rees-led split. It amounts to the same thing.

Or, "mother of all splits looms" again?

[Q]

The article is a solid piece on the question of the viability of the no-platform tactic. Instead of constantly dissing the CPGB, perhaps the SWP members here could actually engage on the content of that question? It would be a welcome change of pace.

[bricolage]

There's a national postal strike going on and the weekly worker go with "Formation of Rees faction..." as their headline.... :rolleyes:

ADDITIONALLY!


who was billed under the title, ‘Is capitalism still in crisis?’

I wonder which out of this, 'was marx right?' or 'what is socialism?' holds the title for the most reused meeting title? :laugh:

[bricolage]

SWP-provided bottles of cider

Hmmm, might have to go to more SWP meetings...

[bricolage]

I reminded comrades of some history, of how the left’s calls for a ban on the British Union of Fascists backfired with the 1936 Public Order Act, which lost its legislative virginity by being wielded not against Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts, but against the left. It has likewise been heavily employed by the state against Irish republicans and striking miners.

There's a much recent example of this too;


The Home Secretary has just announced that the anti-Islam march in Luton will not be taking place. In fact, as a precautionary measure, all marches have been banned in the town for the next three months. This is a massive victory for everyone who joined our protest yesterday. Over 14,000 letters were sent urging a ban and our voices have been heard.
Thanks to everyone who sent off a letter. We have won and Luton is a safer place because of it. This is just further proof of what we can achieve when we get organised.
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/496/We-won!

[Q]

There's a national postal strike going on and the weekly worker go with "Formation of Rees faction..." as their headline.... :rolleyes:
I agree, this is one of the more stupid headlines. But it fits the place the Weekly Worker sees for itself, namely as an open platform of discussion and debate within the left. Arguably their backpage should have been the frontpage.

[Wanted Man]

Indeed, it's nice to see that they're keeping up with the real news:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/790/images/790cover.jpg

"CPGB" member: Check this out!
Worker: Holy shit! I've always wanted to know about the finer details of factional differences within the SWP! How much does this cost?

[Tower of Bebel]

Why are some people still comparing this paper with many other papers on the left? There's a totally different approach involved, it's not about reaching "broad layers of workers", so tackle the approach instead.

"Their focus on the radical left is stupid[, our focus on strikes and demos is far more correct]!" Such claims do not address the purpose of the CPGB's paper: spark the debate among those who belong to the existing left.

EDIT: When I happen to have an edition of which the front cover does not fit the event I'm attending, I just try to use different page. Simple! One that fits the situation of course. In most cases that's the back cover because papers usually are balanced between 2 or 3 different priorities.

This applies to the Weekly Worker as well. If I wanted to sell the WW to "workers" I would use a different page. So they don't have to judge me on Reese's face! Because the paper is balanced between the SWP, internal discussion and the postal strikes it is possible for me to use the back cover on the postal strike in case I have to talk to "workers".

[bricolage]

I think people are still criticising the approach because it's still a stupid approach.

[Vanguard1917]

Neither at that meeting nor at any other point have the SWP ever said that the BNP should be banned.

'Turn the BNP into HMP [Her Majesty's Prison]' -- isn't that your party's slogan?

[Wanted Man]

Why are some people still comparing this paper with many other papers on the left? There's a totally different approach involved, it's not about reaching "broad layers of workers", so tackle the approach instead.

"Their focus on the radical left is stupid[, our focus on strikes and demos is far more correct]!" Such claims do not address the purpose of the CPGB's paper: spark the debate among those who belong to the existing left.

Ahh, that's why they call themselves a communist party and their paper "Weekly Worker". Nope, nothing to do with communism and workers there, just a navel-gazing "open platform" to "spark debate" on the left that wants nothing to do with them. In that case, maybe they should change their name to better reflect their uselessness.

[Vanguard1917]

Ahh, that's why they call themselves a communist party and their paper "Weekly Worker". Nope, nothing to do with communism and workers there, just a navel-gazing "open platform" to "spark debate" on the left that wants nothing to do with them. In that case, maybe they should change their name to better reflect their uselessness.

Why don't you address the points that the article has made? It's the pro-censorship position which the left upholds today that really has "nothing to do with communism".

[Wanted Man]

Why don't you address the points that the article has made? It's the pro-censorship position which the left upholds today that really has "nothing to do with communism".

Because I agree with that conclusion. I was addressing Trotskyist Alienation.

[BobKKKindle$]

'Turn the BNP into HMP [Her Majesty's Prison]' -- isn't that your party's slogan?

Nope.

To Q, the main reason I don't bother developing long answers to the CPGB when they make "arguments" around issues like the desirability of no-platform, is that, now that I've been personally involved in an event that they've covered, it's clear to me that they have no interest in building unity on the left at all, but are concerned solely with disregarding reality and attempting to undermine the credibility of other left-wing groups. Just looking through the article, they distort the truth in a number of areas. For a start, there was definitely talk of organization. When we have our first meeting of the term we know that there will be lots of people there who are interested in what we have to say and may also have questions about how our party is different from other groups on the left and what our vision of socialism is like, and so, in the interests of developing a periphery, either the main speaker or the chair (i.e. myself for this particular meeting) is encouraged to end their comments in a way that emphasizes the desirability of being organized in comparison to just being an isolated activist. I, as the chair, did explain the point of organization, noting in particular that being part of a party like the SWP allows us to learn from the experiences of other activists around the country and approach struggles in a coherent and unified way. There was also talk of democracy, because Alex made it clear that our vision of a socialist society is based around the principle that workers should come together both within their individual workplaces and on a wider basis in order to decide how resources should be allocated in a democratic fashion, and, as even this article notes, he also demonstrated the Marxist theory of the state and pointed out that even people on the right like Niall Ferguson acknowledge that there is a tension between the current state of affairs and the values of democracy. Once again, the CPGB ignores this, maybe because their sole member was too busy waiting to come out with his sectarian bile and wasn't listening to what was being said by other people at the meeting. Alex also dealt with the comments that were raised by the CPGB member the first time and it seemed that this individual was confused in what he was saying - at one point he implied that the murder of communists in Iran ("our comrades", apparently, as if the CPGB has international relevance) was the fault of the SWP because we don't think that Iranian workers should have to form workers' militias in order to have a right to fight back against imperialism, in the event of Iran being invaded.

Also, the people that were called upon to offer contributions and questions were not all from SWSS, nor were they decided upon in advance. The vast majority of people who spoke after Alex had finished his main speech were not involved with us and were new to the university, and all the members of our SWSS group are aware that, at the first meeting of the term in particular, it is important to let other people have their say, and they [SWSS] only asked to speak once the discussion on no-platform was underway - which preceded the contribution of the CPGB member, whatever he wants to believe, and provoked a range of responses. Nor did we neglect the issue of people who vote BNP - all agreed that there was a need for a left-wing alternative to defeat fascism (in addition to confronting them on the streets) and I personally pointed out that we should be wary of assuming that large numbers of working-class people are turning to fascism because, statistically speaking, most of the people who turn to the BNP are former Tory voters and overwhelmingly middle-class. Note also the CPGB's derision towards those who asked what they view as less pertinent and interesting questions - as if people should be concerned with esoteric subjects like HOPI above the things that are more likely to concern people who are just coming into contact with left-wing ideas, like the Marxist understanding of class.

Looking at the broader activist scene at Oxford, neither the member who was at that meeting (who is also a student) or the leader of his organization, McNair, who is a professor at the university, have shown their faces at the anti-war coalition meetings, which is the hub of student politics, nor did they turn up at the picket lines this morning (yes, this morning - I and other SWP comrades were there, bright and early, with the collection we had raised at this meeting, which this article neglects to mention, along with a member from the SP and Workers Power - if they can turn up there's no excuse for the CPGB) to show solidarity and have a chat. I think it's definitely important for students to support working-class struggles but the CPGB apparently does not share this belief - as we can see from their absence this morning at a local level, and the fact that their national paper, published at the beginning of a struggle that may determine the fate of public services, has as its front cover something about the SWP.

Judging by what they've been up to in Oxford (or rather, what they haven't been doing) this is a thoroughly elitist organization that has nothing to do with factual accuracy or working-class emancipation. It is however incredibly flattering that they should devote an entire article to a meeting held by my SWSS group, which consists of about 12 people.

[Q]

I thank you Bob, for actually providing some backbone to your position towards the CPGB. This is something substantial that I can respect.

Perhaps it is an idea to write a letter as a reply to the article for the next issue of the WW, to give your view on how things went down? They do provide the platform.

[Uncle Ho]

It always makes me wonder why the Weekly Worker constantly focuses on issues around other left groups than issues concerning the working class. Then again this makes more sense when I remember a CPGB member on a recent demo saying they don't really "care about the working class". Maybe because they're so alienated with the struggles that have been going on?

I'll try to respond to this nonsense tomorrow or Saturday.

If British "socialists" are anything like their American counterparts, it's because they're all little bourgeoisie brats born with more in their trust fund than most workers will make in their lives, who have never worked a day in their lives and are pretending to be socialists to impress that cute girl who sits next to them in Art History.

[Vanguard1917]

Nope.

Are you denying that it's a slogan used by your party's leadership?

The reality is, of course, that the SWP supports a wide range of state measures against the far right, from sacking workers who support the BNP to banning books from libraries.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I believe it was Weyman Bennett who coined that term, so yeah basically SWP.

[BobKKKindle$]

Are you denying that it's a slogan used by your party's leadership?

The reality is, of course, that the SWP supports a wide range of state measures against the far right, from sacking workers who support the BNP to banning books from libraries.

It was used by Weyman Bennett in his capacity as a representative of UAF, and so whilst he is also a leading member of the SWP, him saying that does not represent the SWP's position. The effect of being part of a united front is that leaders often themselves being forced to argue in favour of positions that they may not personally agree with if the other groups and forces that are part of the united front have supported the position against the arguments of more radical forces like the SWP, the point however is that we in the SWP still fight against calls for censorship and in favour of radical tactics, and we accomplish much more by being part of that united front than if we remained outside of it and made calls for socialist revolution in isolation from broader forces.

The SWP has of course been willing to act independently of UAF when doing so does not conflict with the obligations we have as a component of that united front. For example, when the demonstration of the EDL in September was not banned by the council in Birmingham, as had initially been requested by Salma Yaqoob, the local UAF leadership decided not to hold a demonstration against the EDL, and yet, because we knew that it would be wrong to allow the fascists to walk through a city centre in one of the most diverse towns in Britain, the SWP did hold a demonstration, in conjunction with other anti-fascists, independently. In this context it is wrong to assert that UAF is simply an SWP front, as otherwise this sort of thing would never happen. Nonetheless it would be wrong for Weyman Bennet to go against the decisions of UAF in his capacity as a representative (i.e. rejecting censorship and calling for socialist revolution) in terms of what he says about their policy because that kind of behaviour would ultimately lead to the collapse of the united front once its more moderate sections realized that decisions reached by democratic majority were not being implemented.

[YKTMX]

Neither at that meeting nor at any other point have the SWP ever said that the BNP should be banned. I should know, I am the chair they keep referring to.


Absolutely. I am utterly bemused. This is the most outrageous straw-man ever.

If you don't know the difference between "No Platform" and calling for the "State" to ban a political party, you're a fool.

[Vanguard1917]

It was used by Weyman Bennett in his capacity as a representative of UAF, and so whilst he is also a leading member of the SWP, him saying that does not represent the SWP's position. The effect of being part of a united front is that leaders often themselves being forced to argue in favour of positions that they may not personally agree with

So you're claiming that Weyman Bennett is in fact against state suppression against the BNP outside of his capacity as UAF leader and that it's the UAF popular front which makes him passionately demand that the state should arrest and imprison people because of their politics and that it should restrict free speech? Do you have any evidence to back up this bizarre claim?

And i wasn't talking about the UAF before; i was referring to the SWP elite itself -- which supports workers being sacked because of their support for the BNP, supports banning far-right books from libraries, and supports laws against anti-Islamic speech. These are well-documented facts.

[fidzboi]

I think people are still criticising the approach because it's still a stupid approach.

You don't need to like the positions of the CPGB or the party itself to see the fundamental value in what they are doing. They consistently challenge some of the radical lefts most basic assumptions, which is something that the other organisations on the left seem unwilling to do. That provokes thought, discussion, argument, the things that clarify and, when needed, correct our politics. And the whole Griffin on Question Time saga seems to suggest that we really need to partake in more of this.

I've been uncertain up until now as to what exactly I thought would be a good response, but with the benefit of hindsight I think it's safe to say that our actual response was misguided.

After spending the day browsing internet forums, I'd say the SWP and UAF have come of worse than the BNP, and even if you have a profound hatred of the SWP, you won't welcome this. The popular perception seems to be that the anti-fascists acted in a manner that would justify the characterisation of the far left as 'Stalinists'. By that I mean the common conceptions of what 'Stalinist' politics represent, anti-democratic, repressive and authoritarian politics.

This doesn't just affect the SWP of course, all of us will suffer tarring from this particularly odious brush. The SWP are the biggest socialist party in Britain, which means, whether you like it or not, they are the flag carriers of socialist politics in this country. Which means that their public face is transplanted onto all radical orgs regardless of whether they agree with the SWP or not.

People have noticed that Griffin wasn't really allowed to make any points, that he was ganged up upon by the panel, that the chair was somewhat abrupt, that the audience was obviously biased and selected, with the high proportion of 'ethnic' audience members also not going unnoticed. On top of this, we all would have witnessed how all three politicians fell over each other in their attempts to be more anti-immigrant than the rest, Griffin didn't even need to speak to win this portion of the debate.

Indeed, the polite and 'gentlemanly' manner in which Griffin conducted himself amid a barrage of hostility, will have done him and his party no harm. Whilst most people, including it seems a large proportion of the far left, seem to have been turned off by the SWP/UAF approach. We look like jackasses, Griffin looks like a decent fellow, and once again we see no real critique of the mainstream political parties. (Unfortunately Greer didn't criticise the political elite around her once, which I found surprising as I thought she was vaguely left wing.)

Could the SWP/UAF petitioned to be allowed a panellist? Yes. Would they have got a panellist? Perhaps. Even if they had got one, would that panellist have risen above the trivial and offered a clear socialist viewpoint? I don't know.

It appears the idea of the left wing critique has gone missing. In this instance, as I've seen others on this forum mention, we could of pursued a twofold programme: (1) focus the debate on immigration and offer a critique of all establishment parties as well as the BNP, a position that would have culminated in a 'pro-immigration' (there must be a better term than that, anyone?) protest the night of the show; (2) try and get a left wing perspective on the show, one which would have answered the first question by saying 'Churchill was a vile racist old ****, and I think it's quite fitting the BNP choose to basque in his glory'.

This didn't happen, instead we've come off looking like a bunch of numpties. And whilst a large, flagship party like the SWP will not only make mistakes, mistakes are excusable, but refuse to rectify them once they've had the benefit of hindsight, there is a fundamental need for people like the CPGB to challenge the ingrained mantras of the left.

Human politics, like human beings, gets more and more complex as time goes on, yet 'progressives' are stuck repeating the same ancient formulas that have by no means been vindicated by Mr. History. That is something we need to think about, and then sort out.

[Tower of Bebel]

WW, just like CPGB, is heritage. Simple. They write about it themselves. That's not a secret.

Of course it is supposed to be read by workers. They hope everyone will read it. But they also envisage the formation of a workers' party through the existing left (not only the radical left though). That's why many articles are devoted to what other parties think and do. Not only the SWP or the AWL, but also the Labour party, the Labour representation committee, etc.

And if you have a problem with it you should address this problem head-on. Not by retorically asking how a worker would respond to the headlines, or "how they do it" (continuous criticism), but by both addressing its contents and the overall 'method' involved.

Sure, I question the headlines (not only the lay out), I question the way they generalize about Trotskyism, their vote for Labour, etc. Of course! It's almost impossible for me to support them uncritically and still be part of an organization they criticize.

But if it weren't for the fact that there's a certain discrepancy between what people say or write about them (lunatics, sectarians, gossip rag, etc.) and what they are I wouldn't even really bother to defend them.

Where's the gossip? What's so sectarian? I just think that the CS, when they intervene during meetings of the SWP, "prove" that they're inexperienced. People who're nuts don't produce a weekly paper and receive more than 1000 pounds a month. Don't tell me the world's gone mad!
And worse of all, some cheap criticisms affect my own organization, even though the CWI differs, from a certain point of view, so much from the CPGB!

So for the off-topic discussion guys. But BK, make sure that this blunder will be published in the next issue of the WW so that those who read it know how they falsified some recent SWP-history.

[ls]

There's a national postal strike going on and the weekly worker go with "Formation of Rees faction..." as their headline.... :rolleyes:

Postal workers commenting on this yesterday at mount pleasant were mildly interested, some of them went and showed up at the demo.

I think attending the demo was worthy myself, I had other responsibilities so could not go, but I don't have anything against others who did (that doesn't mean I think the UAF are a great organisation btw).

[bricolage]

Postal workers commenting on this yesterday at mount pleasant were mildly interested, some of them went and showed up at the demo.

A demo about a split in the SWP? Eh.

[ls]

A demo about a split in the SWP? Eh.

Now that would be interesting; a bunch of middle-class people stood around with costa-a-arm-anda-leg coffee and some nice croissants gently holding placards and attempting to authoritatively insult the opposition.

"You are nothing but sectarian scoundrels! Oh nice jumper by the way, did you get it from that nice little shop down by your way in south-west london?"

"Yes it is rather nice isn't it, oh you should quit while you're ahead you terrible anti-SWP sectarians, and where is your jumper from? I suspect that organic fairtrade sweatshop in Mayfair."

[Yehuda Stern]

It was used by Weyman Bennett in his capacity as a representative of UAF, and so whilst he is also a leading member of the SWP, him saying that does not represent the SWP's position.Then again, Weyman Bennett also said something about how Jews should go back to New York. This was never denied by the SWP leadership, so we can accept it as being true. Still he remains in the SWP leadership, and is allowed even to be the SWP's man in UAF. Tell me, Bob, since Bennett hasn't been condemned or censured for that, can we just assume they simply fit in quite well with the SWP leadership's positions (like the "Jew free holocaust")?

Actually, when you couple this with SWP member Sabiha Iqbal becoming a government adviser a while back, the picture one gets of the SWP is an organization where one can do and say anything one wants as long as it isn't at the expense of the leadership's authority. Does that sound like a revolutionary organization to anyone?


The effect of being part of a united front is that leaders often themselves being forced to argue in favour of positions that they may not personally agree withOne would think this would be a perfectly good argument against participation in such rotten political blocs. But no:


we accomplish much more by being part of that united front than if we remained outside of it and made calls for socialist revolution in isolation from broader forces.
Nonetheless it would be wrong for Weyman Bennet to go against the decisions of UAF in his capacity as a representative (i.e. rejecting censorship and calling for socialist revolution)In other words, it's better to be a reformist among reformists than to be a revolutionary in a smaller group. Just like how Lenin and Trotsky joined the popular front because that would've been far more fruitful than calling for a workers revolution "in isolation." We all remember Lenin's dictum: "better more, but they don't have to be that great."

The SWP claims its tactics allow it to be non-sectarian while at the same time not selling out its political positions. Facts paint a different picture.