Another SWP Split

[Nosotros]

A mate of mine who has recently left the SWP says there has been another split, does anyone know any more about this?

[Искра]

7th International :scared:

[Sam_b]

Someone leaving the organisation does not mean there is a split.

[Искра]

Someone leaving the organisation does not mean there is a split.

A mate of mine who has recently left the SWP says there has been another split,

Read what he said.

[fitz]

Apparently a faction advocating left unity have been kicked out
Shock horror a Swappoe split!
If they can't control it they don't want to be part of it - the good old SWP mantra

[Die Neue Zeit]

So am I correct then, in saying that the situation is worse than what the Weekly Worker reported?

[Sam_b]

Read what he said

The point is that there hasn't been a split, numbnuts.

[Revy]

the SWP is not a party which can provide real revolutionary organization. It is a sect, a very large sect, but a sect nonetheless.

Why do you think the ISO in the US was expelled from the IST in 2001, I recall? It was some stupid reason but it really didn't matter, whether they were right or wrong, they didn't conform, and they had to be pushed out. Was it because they were more reformist than the SWP? You could hardly say that. No, it was because they disagreed on some petty ideological line regarding the conditions for revolution at the time. The SWP thought, naively, that the world was in a pre-revolutionary period, the ISO correctly knew that such thinking was wishful. And for that, the ISO had to be expelled. How silly !

They couldn't keep RESPECT together, they couldn't keep the IST together, so how can we hold out hope in their ability to keep the British left and the British working class unified?

I say, au contraire, the SWP is sectarian against all that raise criticism against it. Whether it be the CPGB or RevLeft. Could it be that those derided as "sectarians" don't have an interest is not seeing a sect built, but a party. That's not sectarian....it's the opposite.

People just want the SWP to change, but everyone has their head in the sand as if there's no problem. Well then nothing's going to change.

[RHIZOMES]

the SWP is not a party which can provide real revolutionary organization. It is a sect, a very large sect, but a sect nonetheless.

I heard one of their London branches (I think West but I'm not sure) has only 8-12 activists or something like that.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why do you think the ISO in the US was expelled from the IST in 2001, I recall? It was some stupid reason but it really didn't matter, whether they were right or wrong, they didn't conform, and they had to be pushed out. Was it because they were more reformist than the SWP? You could hardly say that. No, it was because they disagreed on some petty ideological line regarding the conditions for revolution at the time. The SWP thought, naively, that the world was in a pre-revolutionary period, the ISO correctly knew that such thinking was wishful. And for that, the ISO had to be expelled. How silly!
Was there not also a pro-IST split from the ISO called Left Turn that upheld the IST line for a while, then got tired of it and left as well?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

All the parties on the left in Britain are sects. Come on. Most working people probably know nothing about any of these parties, and precious little about the 'Socialism' that these little sects are offering.:rolleyes:

[BobKKKindle$]

I heard one of their London branches (I think West but I'm not sure) has only 8-12 activists or something like that.

I heard that the NZ Workers Party has only two members, and organizes scabbing. See, I can do it to.


the SWP is not a party which can provide real revolutionary organization. It is a sect, a very large sect, but a sect nonetheless.

Did Obama ever reply to the congratulatory letter your organization sent?

[Q]

I heard that the NZ Workers Party has only two members, and organizes scabbing. See, I can do it to.



Did Obama ever reply to the congratulatory letter your organization sent?

Neg repped for petty point scoring.

Please stay on topic and play on the ball, not the person, kthx.

[Sam_b]

I love it how Q always 'thanks' posts that either have a go at the SWP, or back up Weekly Worker nonsense, its pathetic.


The SWP thought, naively, that the world was in a pre-revolutionary period, the ISO correctly knew that such thinking was wishful.

It would probably help your analysis if you actually had a fucking clue about what happened, which obviously you don't. There is a difference rightly pointing out that Seattle showed an upsurge in mass mobilisations and activity against globalisation and a pre-revolutionary period, which would attain that everyone who has attended an anti-WTO demo or a G8 protest is a class-conscious revolutionary. So in short, you don't know what you're talking about here.


They couldn't keep RESPECT together, they couldn't keep the IST together, so how can we hold out hope in their ability to keep the British left and the British working class unified?


I would fathom you know nothing about the RESPECT bit, and do you consider one section being expelled by the IST as not being able to keep it together? What nonsense. Conversely I could say how is your party keeping the American left and American working class unified, when you send letters to Obama and have had a presidential candidate in the past who has tried to tone down the crucial point of a woman's right to choose?

I would also love to hear how often you read Socialist Worker and SWP bulletins before arguing about 'sectarianism', unless you regard responding to a CPGB article i the paper is more important than publishing leading articles about the strike wave and, you know, things that matter to the class. During the postal strikes, the CPGB's front page article was on the SWP and a 'Reesite faction'. Is this really a desire to build a party and appeal to the class, during arguably the most important strike action of the year?

In short, I fathom that you haven't got a clue about the SWP, or about what you're talking about in general.


Neg repped for petty point scoring

What a load of rubbish. Maybe you should ask the Human Condition or Arizona Bay for expanding their argument, or DemSoc's pointless one-liner before announcing this, eh?

[redasheville]

Was there not also a pro-IST split from the ISO called Left Turn that upheld the IST line for a while, then got tired of it and left as well?

They ditched their politics for a more movementist approach, and ditched the IST with it. They basically followed what the SWP wanted the ISO to do to its logical extreme. Their magazine sometimes has good stuff in it.

[BobKKKindle$]

Neg repped for petty point scoring.

Please stay on topic and play on the ball, not the person, kthx.

Neg repped for being a boring CPGB hack.

I don't see it as necessary to respond to much criticism of the SWP any more because so much of it is misleading slander. To take THC's post as an example, it is simply not true that the collapse of RESPECT was a result of the SWP being sectarian or not making the effort to hold the coalition together, rather it was due to the fact that its leader, George Galloway, was intent on leading the coalition in a communitarian direction, so that it was moving away from a commitment to revolution (not unlike the SP-USA) and in those circumstances it would have been wrong for the SWP to remain part of something whose aims we did not agree with - it is ironic and absurd that many of the people who accuse the SWP of appealing only to Muslims (mainly because we think that women should be allowed to wear the hijab and because our analysis of religion is a bit more nuanced and consistent with Marxism then saying that religion can only ever be oppressive, which is something that a lot of people on the left have a tendency to do) also cite the collapse of RESPECT as an additional point of criticism against our party as if it would have been anything other than downright opportunism to not break with Galloway when we did.

As everyone is aware, the role that John Rees had in RESPECT was one of the factors behind his removal from the central committee, a decision that was passed democratically by the party membership at conference, although groups like the CPGB sought to manipulate that decision and make it seem as if Rees was the object of bureaucratic attacks, which he wasn't. Likewise, in my experience, most of the SWP regrets the break with the ISO, but it's not as if there were no concrete differences. The split originated in a disagreement over how the ISO should orientate itself to the emerging anti-capitalist movement and in particular whether it was right to call for a national mobilization just prior to the Seattle demonstrations in 1999, with the ISO arguing that this approach was not necessary or feasible, and the SWP arguing that it was key - think what you will about who was correct but it's absurd to say that this wasn't an important disagreement, and in my view the position of the SWP has been vindicated by the failure of the anti-capitalist movement to develop or assume concrete organizational form since Seattle.

I'd like to add that since one of their members became a student at my university this year, myself and my branch comrades have been the direct targets of the CPGB's slander, as distinct from the SWP as a national organization - on the one hand it's pathetic that they went to such lengths (in the issue of the WW about seven or eight weeks ago) to cover a relatively minor SWSS meeting with an audience of not more than a hundred people but on the other hand it's further evidence of how malicious the CPGB is, and that's why I don't feel it's necessary to respond in depth to their criticisms any more. I did actually respond to the slander against my SWSS branch when it was published just for the sake of showing how much they lie, and anyone can read that thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/swps-calls-state-t120473/index.html?t=120473&highlight=chair) and draw their own conclusions. It's also significant that all of the people on this forum who sympathize with the CPGB and publish their articles do not live in the UK and have no direct experience with the British Left, as anyone who has witnessed the CPGB in action knows not to take them seriously.

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is that there hasn't been a split, numbnuts.

Please don't flame. This is a verbal warning.

[Red Dreadnought]

A split of IST at Germany (G.I.S) evolved to "left communism" and now is member of IBRP (of Battaglia Communista tendance).

Maybe, if the best spliting militants critisize the opportunism of SWP we'd see another people passing to internationalism.

I'm sorry, but those politics of SWP, joining "moderate" muslisms to RESPECT, attacking people at demostrations about Gaza with internationalist possitions, supporting Hamas, Iran etc. like "Anti-imperialists" (that kind of anti-imperialist that only consider Uncle Sam, and not the whole world imperialism like a system), movementism...obviuslly are rejected by a lot of honest militants.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I love it how Q always 'thanks' posts that either have a go at the SWP, or back up Weekly Worker nonsense, its pathetic.

If he did that, he would've given "thanks" to the Politics thread "Splendid Talking Shop." :rolleyes:

[RHIZOMES]

I heard that the NZ Workers Party has only two members, and organizes scabbing. See, I can do it to.

Except I heard it from a reliable source, a British expat from the AWL (who is now in the WP), who used to fucking be a part of the London left. No need to go off at me for simply enquiring me about it.

[Andy Bowden]

To take THC's post as an example, it is simply not true that the collapse of RESPECT was a result of the SWP being sectarian or not making the effort to hold the coalition together, rather it was due to the fact that its leader, George Galloway, was intent on leading the coalition in a communitarian direction, so that it was moving away from a commitment to revolution (not unlike the SP-USA) and in those circumstances it would have been wrong for the SWP to remain part of something whose aims we did not agree with

What was different about Galloways politics in 2006 from 2004? The SWP backed up Galloway when he refused to take a workers wage for example, and Lindsey German's declaration that gay rights weren't a "shibboleth".

There are no fundamental political differences from Galloways politics today than when the SWP made an alliance with him.

PS: What was wrong about John Rees' conduct in Respect that prompted his recall?

[Random Precision]

I swore up and down that I would never participate in another SWP thread. But here I am. Someone please send help.


The split originated in a disagreement over how the ISO should orientate itself to the emerging anti-capitalist movement and in particular whether it was right to call for a national mobilization just prior to the Seattle demonstrations in 1999, with the ISO arguing that this approach was not necessary or feasible, and the SWP arguing that it was key - think what you will about who was correct but it's absurd to say that this wasn't an important disagreement, and in my view the position of the SWP has been vindicated by the failure of the anti-capitalist movement to develop or assume concrete organizational form since Seattle

Bob, you can't tell me that you see nothing wrong with your party's approach in this incident. Why is a disagreement over events that are happening in the United States becoming such an issue for the SWP? Why wasn't there any sort of comradely trust between the organizations to let the one do what it thinks is best for the situation that they are up against? Why did the SWP solicit a faction at our conference and then recognize it as the IST's US Section? Why was the SWP in a position within the tendency to have a section expelled when it doesn't like what it happens to be doing?

And also this talk of a "national mobilization in Seattle" cracks me up. Seattle is not exactly easy to reach for even many comrades on the West Coast, let alone in the Midwest and Eastern Seaboard. I have said this before, it would be like the SWP organizing a "national mobilization" for something in Moscow. But London was never exactly interested in what conditions were like for the rest of us, they've been content to treat the sections of the IST like foreign clones of themselves programmed to do what they want. This is the huge problem with the IST and it has caused splits not only in the United States but in Greece, Turkey, Australia and Canada as well that I know if.

I wont comment on RESPECT, the talk of a split in the British organization or anything else, because I'm across an ocean from the UK and I trust the comrades there to know the situation on the ground there and respond to it appropriately. Something the SWP could learn a few lessons in.

[RHIZOMES]

Why is a disagreement over events that are happening in the United States becoming such an issue for the SWP? Why wasn't there any sort of comradely trust between the organizations to let the one do what it thinks is best for the situation that they are up against? Why did the SWP solicit a faction at our conference and then recognize it as the IST's US Section?

It's that old symptom of certain far left groups to think they know better about how to make revolution in a country then the people who actually live there.

[Sam_b]

a British expat from the AWL

That explains a lot, especially as the AWL dedicate at least two pages in every paper to its tactic of trying to split SWP members off into their own party.

[RHIZOMES]

That explains a lot, especially as the AWL dedicate at least two pages in every paper to its tactic of trying to split SWP members off into their own party.

So his claims are inaccurate then? That's all I want to know. I don't really see how what you just said really disproves it or implicates any sort of lying either (despite my misgivings with such a sectarian tactic). In fact, if they devote so much time and effort to stealing your members they could possibly very well have a good idea of the current activist numbers of the SWP X London branch (I've forgotten which part of London it was, I think he said West, I could go and recheck). I just remember him going "they aren't even that big of a party anymore, a comrade of mine told me their X London branch only has Y number of activists". I don't really see any motivations for him to lie to me, it's not like I'm gonna be joining the SWP any time soon - I'm literally on the other side of the world.

Also as a disclaimer i'm not too fond of the AWL either. This comrade was part of the "minority faction" that opposes their completely bizarre Iraq War line, but to be quite honest I wouldn't even be in a group that advocated such a line to begin with.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Have you not encountered SWP members before? Anyone who isn't in the SWP is obviously always 100% wrong/lying about everything and therefore an unreliable source. If you can't back an argument up with quotes from SWP members, it's not a valid argument.

On a side-note, I'd be interested to know if Sam b is still maintaining the pretence that all the militant anti-fascists are lying about what happened in Leeds (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sdl-edl-glasgow-t121723/index4.html).

[Jazzratt]

Neg repped for being a boring CPGB hack.

I don't see it as necessary to respond to much criticism of the SWP any more because so much of it is misleading slander. To take THC's post as an example, it is simply not true that the collapse of RESPECT was a result of the SWP being sectarian or not making the effort to hold the coalition together, rather it was due to the fact that its leader, George Galloway, was intent on leading the coalition in a communitarian direction, so that it was moving away from a commitment to revolution (not unlike the SP-USA) and in those circumstances it would have been wrong for the SWP to remain part of something whose aims we did not agree with - it is ironic and absurd that many of the people who accuse the SWP of appealing only to Muslims (mainly because we think that women should be allowed to wear the hijab and because our analysis of religion is a bit more nuanced and consistent with Marxism then saying that religion can only ever be oppressive, which is something that a lot of people on the left have a tendency to do) also cite the collapse of RESPECT as an additional point of criticism against our party as if it would have been anything other than downright opportunism to not break with Galloway when we did.

As everyone is aware, the role that John Rees had in RESPECT was one of the factors behind his removal from the central committee, a decision that was passed democratically by the party membership at conference, although groups like the CPGB sought to manipulate that decision and make it seem as if Rees was the object of bureaucratic attacks, which he wasn't. Likewise, in my experience, most of the SWP regrets the break with the ISO, but it's not as if there were no concrete differences. The split originated in a disagreement over how the ISO should orientate itself to the emerging anti-capitalist movement and in particular whether it was right to call for a national mobilization just prior to the Seattle demonstrations in 1999, with the ISO arguing that this approach was not necessary or feasible, and the SWP arguing that it was key - think what you will about who was correct but it's absurd to say that this wasn't an important disagreement, and in my view the position of the SWP has been vindicated by the failure of the anti-capitalist movement to develop or assume concrete organizational form since Seattle.

I'd like to add that since one of their members became a student at my university this year, myself and my branch comrades have been the direct targets of the CPGB's slander, as distinct from the SWP as a national organization - on the one hand it's pathetic that they went to such lengths (in the issue of the WW about seven or eight weeks ago) to cover a relatively minor SWSS meeting with an audience of not more than a hundred people but on the other hand it's further evidence of how malicious the CPGB is, and that's why I don't feel it's necessary to respond in depth to their criticisms any more. I did actually respond to the slander against my SWSS branch when it was published just for the sake of showing how much they lie, and anyone can read that thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/swps-calls-state-t120473/index.html?t=120473&highlight=chair) and draw their own conclusions. It's also significant that all of the people on this forum who sympathize with the CPGB and publish their articles do not live in the UK and have no direct experience with the British Left, as anyone who has witnessed the CPGB in action knows not to take them seriously.

Verbal warning for trolling.

[Revy]

Neg repped for being a boring CPGB hack.

I don't see it as necessary to respond to much criticism of the SWP any more because so much of it is misleading slander. To take THC's post as an example, it is simply not true that the collapse of RESPECT was a result of the SWP being sectarian or not making the effort to hold the coalition together, rather it was due to the fact that its leader, George Galloway, was intent on leading the coalition in a communitarian direction, so that it was moving away from a commitment to revolution (not unlike the SP-USA) and in those circumstances it would have been wrong for the SWP to remain part of something whose aims we did not agree with - it is ironic and absurd that many of the people who accuse the SWP of appealing only to Muslims (mainly because we think that women should be allowed to wear the hijab and because our analysis of religion is a bit more nuanced and consistent with Marxism then saying that religion can only ever be oppressive, which is something that a lot of people on the left have a tendency to do) also cite the collapse of RESPECT as an additional point of criticism against our party as if it would have been anything other than downright opportunism to not break with Galloway when we did.

This is a blatant denial of history. At the RESPECT founding conference, the SWP consistently voted down ANYTHING revolutionary, so that they could better "win votes", such things included: open borders, gay rights, abortion, a republic, MP's on a workers' wage, and socialism itself.

You act like the cart ran away from the horse......but you were the cart.

As leading SWP member Lindsey German put it (at the RESPECT launch):


Lindsey German moved the original declaration. "To those who ask, why is it not more socialist, I say: because it is built on the anti-war movement, and because there are large Muslim communities, and we want to reach out to them as well as the traditional left. If they'd wanted to join the Socialist Alliance, they'd have joined it by now." Comrade German, leading SWP member and editor of Socialist Review, was telling us that the working class had not supported the SA because it was too socialist.To which the Weekly Worker commented, somewhere, Tony Cliff was turning in his grave.

Socialism, like other things, was another "shibboleth", and the SWP was quite eager to call things shibboleths.

Read a full account of SWP's activity at the RESPECT founding conference here (http://www.mannyneira.com/weeklyworker/ww513-shibboleth.html).

Your ignorant comment on the SP-USA "moving away from revolution" is hilarious, and it shows the deep level of your sectarianism....but remember that plenty of criticism happens within the SP-USA without people being expelled. I wish that could be said about your organization.

[Nosotros]

Btw I'm talking about the faction called The Mutiny within the SWP the UK, are we talking about the same thing here?

[Revy]

Btw I'm talking about the faction called The Mutiny within the SWP the UK, are we talking about the same thing here?

It wasn't a "faction", I recall, but an event organized by SWP members. It's hard to remember why the SWP elite was so pissed, but then again tyrants don't need reasons for everything.

Elitism is actually the opposite of vanguardism (something which I am no longer opposed to). You see, a revolutionary vanguard wants to advance itself, not tear itself apart.

[Pogue]

It wasn't a "faction", I recall, but an event organized by SWP members. It's hard to remember why the SWP elite was so pissed, but then again tyrants don't need reasons for everything.

Elitism is actually the opposite of vanguardism (something which I am no longer opposed to). You see, a revolutionary vanguard wants to advance itself, not tear itself apart.

I wouldn't say thats a reason why elitism is 'the opposite of vanguardism'. It doesn't make sense to say that, as its pretty obvious no organisation would want to tear itself apart. The question is whether or not vanguardism could represent a form of elitism. I myself think it depends on what 'rights' a vanguard party thinks it has, i.e. I'd say Trotsky's view that a vanguard party could tell a worker what job to do is even more worrying than simple 'elitism'.

[Guerrilla22]

I thought we had a thread on this a few weeks back and it was determined that no split had occured? :confused:

[ellipsis]

blablabla, more pointless sectarianism.