What's happening with the SWP?

[lipmeister]

Any news? Did they split already?

[Q]

The Rees-faction recently walked out, taking with them a few dozen members. Effectively 10% of the party, as I argued here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lindsey-german-resigns-t129095/index.html?p=1675275#post1675275).

[lipmeister]

I see. I was wondering because they have "dissapeared" from the public recently.

[Q]

I see. I was wondering because they have "dissapeared" from the public recently.
Do you mean locally? Nationally they've been involved in TUSC.

[YKTMX]

The Rees-faction recently walked out, taking with them a few dozen members. Effectively 10% of the party, as I argued here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lindsey-german-resigns-t129095/index.html?p=1675275#post1675275).

You're claiming that the party has a (pre-"Exodus") membership of...360?

A pretty silly thing to say, really, comrade.

It is obvious in any district that some members will be more active than others. A member's non-activity is not solely determined by their commitment to socialist politics or the particular stance of the SWP. Lots of things determine what balance people have in their lives between politics and their other interests/commitments - health, childcare, work, money etc.

It is also obvious that the activity of people engaged in working class politics depends on the current status of the working class struggle. So lots of those people that the sectarians criticize as being only "paper members" will, I'll bet anything, throw themselves into activity during any forthcoming upturn in struggle.

You see, all this is clear if you hold a Marxist and theoretical rigorous perspective on organization - if you view the question of organization not only as a practical matter but as a problem of theory.

Working class politics is not a 'thing', but a living form of doing that relies on active human beings to change their world. As such, there will always be unevenness in any party - between cadres and vacillating members and supporters. That is natural and correct. It is even more true for a party that aspires - read my words, aspires - to being a mass party, as the SWP does. This means that we allow people to be members even if their politics are undeveloped and their level of activity negligible.

It may well be that the SWP has a significant amount of dormant members. I know, from my own experience, that lots of people come and go from the day-to-day struggle. But, let's not forget, being a revolutionary socialist is, for anybody, more an aspiration, a process one is engaged in, than a 'thing' that one naturally possesses. Those people who drop out may well come back. They may not come back and new people may come in. These new people may drop out or they may replace the 'old guard'. The 'old guard' might drop out.

All these things are the neccessary, if unfortunate, consequences of an orientation, that we have, towards the struggles and the movements of the class - and the oppressed more generally. The alternative would leave us in complete isolation and create a stagnant lifeless movement.

The stuff over Rees and the others is unfortunate. It's something anybody would wish for. But it's a result, actually, of the openess and breadth of the party. Many members formed a different perspective, a perspective that forced them to leave the organization. The perspective of the majority will replace, and extend beyond, these lost members with new members, so we hope.

That is just another aspect of it.

The endless gossip-mongering, sniffiness and tittle-tattle of the comrades in other parts of the socialist movement in Britain towards the SWP is not something, to be honest, anybody in the Party ever worries about.

If the depth of socialist feeling amongst these people doesn't surpass having a dig at the CC of the SWP, then I question their commitment. If they have enough time to spend their life engaging in online critiques of the practice of the SWP, I really do question the sincerity of their commitment to a communist society.


There is a lot of work to be done. Why don't you just get on with it? Follow your own lights. Try to spread self-confidence amongst our class. Try and form networks of people. Bring people together. Make things difficult for our enemies. Creates the conditions for resistance. Spend time thinking about ways to make our master's lives a bit more difficult. Think about ways to form ways of fighting the spread of fascism and racism amongst our class. Relate your experiences to your comrades. Get together and think about ways of working towards a better society.

Could the sectarians not be doing that? And if they could, why are they not? What are the things that really get them up in the morning? I know what gets me up in the morning - I love working class people and want to see them run society.

What gets the people who write the Weekly Worker out of bed?

Anyway, :) This isn't directed at anyone in particular.

Just a thought, sisters and brothers.

[Q]

You're claiming that the party has a (pre-"Exodus") membership of...360?
I'm not sure how you get to the 360 number. In fact I literally say:

This means that there are about 600 members (10% of 5800) in the SWP, according to the Bolshevik definition.In this number I have built in some considerable margin.


It is obvious in any district that some members will be more active than others. A member's non-activity is not solely determined by their commitment to socialist politics or the particular stance of the SWP. Lots of things determine what balance people have in their lives between politics and their other interests/commitments - health, childcare, work, money etc.I'm a member of a socialist organisation myself. I know how this works. Yet, the SWP levels of activity reminded me of the Dutch SP, which has activity rates of around 3 to 4%. This particular party doesn't even want to go anywhere near the suggestion that it is revolutionary, so that does make one wonder about why the SWP's level of activity is so low.


Working class politics is not a 'thing', but a living form of doing that relies on active human beings to change their world. As such, there will always be unevenness in any party - between cadres and vacillating members and supporters. That is natural and correct. It is even more true for a party that aspires - read my words, aspires - to being a mass party, as the SWP does. This means that we allow people to be members even if their politics are undeveloped and their level of activity negligible.

It may well be that the SWP has a significant amount of dormant members. I know, from my own experience, that lots of people come and go from the day-to-day struggle. But, let's not forget, being a revolutionary socialist is, for anybody, more an aspiration, a process one is engaged in, than a 'thing' that one naturally possesses. Those people who drop out may well come back. They may not come back and new people may come in. These new people may drop out or they may replace the 'old guard'. The 'old guard' might drop out.I agree completely with the point that being a revolutionary is a part of your life. I'm not entirely familiar with the SWP in the UK, but your Dutch section has a very high turnover of the membership and my impression is that the SWP in the UK is the same.

There are several factors to this. One of them is the "hyperactivity" of the organisation, something closely related to its relatively hierarchical organisational structure. Members are pushed and pushed to go from demonstration to demonstration, to mobilise to make the next protest the "big leap forwards", etc. This tends to burn out members at a high pace. Of course many organisations on the far left have a similar feature, but in my talks over time with current and ex-members, the SWP seems to score very high on this issue.

Of course this contradicts a more durable internalisation of being a revolutionary into your life, your life long. What is your view on this matter?


The endless gossip-mongering, sniffiness and tittle-tattle of the comrades in other parts of the socialist movement in Britain towards the SWP is not something, to be honest, anybody in the Party ever worries about.So, why are you making the comment then?


If the depth of socialist feeling amongst these people doesn't surpass having a dig at the CC of the SWP, then I question their commitment. If they have enough time to spend their life engaging in online critiques of the practice of the SWP, I really do question the sincerity of their commitment to a communist society. I disagree. To nutshell it: to think is to disagree. People who don't ask questions, who blindly follow the party line and push fellow members into silence, are the real hurdle towards the revolution. To disagree is to question old ideas, which then can bring genuine progress.


Could the sectarians not be doing that? And if they could, why are they not? What are the things that really get them up in the morning? I know what gets me up in the morning - I love working class people and want to see them run society.I think here you're creating a false dichotomy. To question and criticize is not equal to be sectarian. Sectarianism in fact is putting your own organisation above and beyond that of the interests of the class as a whole. I for one strive to organise the class as a whole and if I understood your post correctly you do too. I think however that in order for us to progress, organise, unite and effectively challenge the system, we have to be open, democratic, critical. These are the values we strive for in a future society, yet for some reason these values lack within our movement. Isn't that strange?

[RevolverNo9]

This means that there are about 600 members (10% of 5800) in the SWP, according to the Bolshevik definition.


The Rees-faction recently walked out, taking with them a few dozen members. Effectively 10% of the party, as I argued here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../lindsey-german-resigns-t129095/index.html?p=1675275#post1675275).

I'm sorry but this is absurd, no matter how all-knowing your Weekly Worker-shaped observatory from another country is.

People in the SWP are well aware that there is a disparity between the party's 'paper' membership, and the number of organised activists, but your propsed figure is first of all complete conjecture and secondly patently untrue. Little over two-hundred delegates participated in Conference this year (at which, incidently Rees' '10%'-sized faction barely managed to push double-figures in the votes they received on various issues) - there is no way this was anything like a third of the active membership in attendence. The active membership is certainly in the thousands - that this doesn't involve the entire register membership is no secret, nor considered as unproblematic, but don't indulge yourself any further, as enjoyable as it evidently appears to be for you.

[RevolverNo9]

Furthermore, partly for above reasons, Counterfire is unlikely to have much of an effect on SWP organisation. The only district where they have a concentration of supporters is up in Tyneside. They failed to take any students outside of one university (SOAS). Some of the people who signed the resignation letter had actually left the SWP a few years ago. (Since 'Bolshevik' measurements of membership have been brought up, I can tell you that the monthly income that the party has lost from the few-dozen that have left is tiny, let alone '10%'!)

It's still unclear what they imagine they can achieve in the near-future, but it seems pretty likely that Counterfire will be content just to try and form a current in the 'movements' and promote their website.

[YKTMX]

I'm not sure how you get to the 360 number.

Maths. You said a "few dozen" (36) was ten percent of the party. I don't think this is obscure particularly.



Of course this contradicts a more durable internalisation of being a revolutionary into your life, your life long. What is your view on this matter?

That it's an interesting point. But I think that it is a necessary feature of our aspiration towards being a mass party. We throw our strength into a lot of things and this, as you say, means that we are sometimes stretched organizationally and in terms of maintaining motivation.

At the end of the day, however, members are still free to choose what they get involved in. From my own point of view, I focus much of my activity on anti-fascist and anti-racist aspects of the Party's mobilizations. So I'm going to Bolton on Saturday to protest the EDL, for example. I tend to miss branch meetings, though.


I think however that in order for us to progress, organise, unite and effectively challenge the system, we have to be open, democratic, critical.

I agree. I don't have a problem with people criticizing the SWP. I just think they can make better use of their time. And you know full-well that much of this discussion does not take place in the spirit of 'comradely criticism', but in a harsh, zealous and sectarian tone. And you know that SWP suffers disproportionally from this type of attack.

If the comrades are interested in a dialogue about the best way to organize, and want to criticize aspects of SWP policy, then I'm all for it. Seriously. Unfortunately, that dialogue can't really get going because most of our interlocutors are more interested in scoring cheap points and gossip mongering. And that creates a resentment to the dialogue as whole amongst SWP members.

So the fault is partially with us, I accept. But we are no more responsible than our opponents, who while talking about 'dialogue', don't really get above invective.

[h9socialist]

The SWP has changed so much in my lifetime I'm confused as to their orientation. A few years ago I participated in a radical forum at a university with members of DSA, Solidarity and CCDS. One SWP member showed up to be somewhat disruptive. Is this the same SWP as in the '60s or is the continuity as strained as I think it is?

[RevolverNo9]

Is this the same SWP as in the '60s or is the continuity as strained as I think it is?

Um, wrong country I think mate! We're talking about the SWP in the UK... which isn't at all related to the SWP in the USA (who as it happens really have undergone real transformations in their history...)

[The Grey Blur]

Had a nice experience with an SWP member tonight; after one of the anti-cuts mass meetings at our university I was approach by an SWP member who asked me what group I belonged to (I replied that I divide my loyalties somewhere between the IMT and CWI) he then threatened to "punch [me] in the face" as I had broken his "3 strikes rule" on criticising the SWP. At first I was sure he was joking and almost burst out laughing until he began a tirade against what he saw as my "sectarian" tendencies (who was threatening violence against a fellow socialist?) which ended in further threats of violence.

What a fucking joke, the SWP has some serious rank-and-file (one of their comrades apologised to me afterwards for his behaviour) but they contain the most awful sectarian and opportunistic elements of the left. Their political level is also zero, I've had to repeatedly explain to their own members their outlooks that I disagree with. Their tactical and organisational flip flops (various front groups which refuse to explicitly endorse a socialist line (people before profit, stop the war, unite against fascism, respect)) are a result of this lack of any serious grounding in marxist theory or practice. This amateur organisation and outlook inevitably leads to splits like this. I wish the SWP would just dissolve itself into some anarchist/left-liberal/utopian socialist/national liberation cheerleading group and leave the serious left alone.

[The Grey Blur]

Bump, I wonder if any SWP members would like to comment on that incident?

After advice from a CWI comrade I decided to mail SWP hq with a formal complaint. I doubt they will do anything but it's useful to have the messages for posterity's sake.

[bricolage]

What University was this at?

[vyborg]

If only IS ever arrived in Italy I could ask to them directly. Analysing the situation via web could be tricky sometimes...

[Dimentio]

Had a nice experience with an SWP member tonight; after one of the anti-cuts mass meetings at our university I was approach by an SWP member who asked me what group I belonged to (I replied that I divide my loyalties somewhere between the IMT and CWI) he then threatened to "punch [me] in the face" as I had broken his "3 strikes rule" on criticising the SWP. At first I was sure he was joking and almost burst out laughing until he began a tirade against what he saw as my "sectarian" tendencies (who was threatening violence against a fellow socialist?) which ended in further threats of violence.

What a fucking joke, the SWP has some serious rank-and-file (one of their comrades apologised to me afterwards for his behaviour) but they contain the most awful sectarian and opportunistic elements of the left. Their political level is also zero, I've had to repeatedly explain to their own members their outlooks that I disagree with. Their tactical and organisational flip flops (various front groups which refuse to explicitly endorse a socialist line (people before profit, stop the war, unite against fascism, respect)) are a result of this lack of any serious grounding in marxist theory or practice. This amateur organisation and outlook inevitably leads to splits like this. I wish the SWP would just dissolve itself into some anarchist/left-liberal/utopian socialist/national liberation cheerleading group and leave the serious left alone.

Wonder if that facepuncher is or has been a member of this community? :lol:

[Saorsa]

^ I bet it was BobK.

[Sam_b]

(various front groups which refuse to explicitly endorse a socialist line (people before profit, stop the war, unite against fascism, respect)

What a load of crap. Perhaps indeed it is yourself that who needs to be "repeatedly explained to" that we do not run these organisations. The tactic of the SWP, and has been since the formation of initiatives such as STWC has been to remain inside these organisations and make socialist arguments from the inside, which we have indeed done, while at the same time attempting to pull class-conscious members working within STWC towards our positions - with success. I would fathom that you are not a member of STWC, UAF, or indeed People Before Profit in the charter days which was attempting to push through working class demands such as increases in minimum wages and more rights for trade unionists in the workplace, and instead have to resort to ridiculous generalisations of which you seem to know little.

The irony in that post anyway is great, the grand rally against 'sectarianism when you yourself seem to wish the liquidation of the SWP for the so-called 'serious left', one of which tendencies you position yourself towards appears to be disintegrating and going back and forth over the medium of the internet, with no real relation to the class!

Give me a break, honestly.

[Lyev]

I really don't understand, with the fragmented state of the left in Britain at the moment, why the left in Britain doesn't unite for a second, and stop bickering? TUSC is definitely a step forward, but lets face it, even though everyone's putting loads of their time, money and effort into getting the election campaign of the ground, TUSC are gonna do pretty crap in the upcoming election. We are leftists, socialists and anti-capitalists, so why don't we all just join together? (I know the main SP-SWP thing is state capitalism vs deformed workers state; but really how relevant is that to your average voter??)

[cmdrdeathguts]

I'm sorry but this is absurd, no matter how all-knowing your Weekly Worker-shaped observatory from another country is.

To clarify, our running estimate is 1200-1500 members by any working definition not concocted for the sole purpose of inflating figures.

[cmdrdeathguts]

I really don't understand, with the fragmented state of the left in Britain at the moment, why the left in Britain doesn't unite for a second, and stop bickering? TUSC is definitely a step forward, but lets face it, even though everyone's putting loads of their time, money and effort into getting the election campaign of the ground, TUSC are gonna do pretty crap in the upcoming election. We are leftists, socialists and anti-capitalists, so why don't we all just join together? (I know the main SP-SWP thing is state capitalism vs deformed workers state; but really how relevant is that to your average voter??)

Alas, there's more to it than that. Even between two organisations like that, there are significant differences - the SP are not nearly as absolutist on no platform as the SWP, and it would be difficult for them to take part in something like UAF, which consumes an awful lot of the SWP's energy. As socialists, we all agree that fascism is a Bad Thing, but disagree on what should be done about it, which means that we can't be united on that question, because we would be paralysed on it. That is, unless minorities were willing to submit to the will of the majority - but it is difficult to imagine either Taaffe or Smith doing that. Indeed, in the last situation where he was outnumbered by the SWP, in the Socialist Alliance, Taaffe bailed out. The organisational regimes in place are another serious block on the road to unity. If it was really that simple, we'd have done it already.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the fifth International will be a turning point in either forcing broad unity between those two orgs. or rendering them permanently irrelevant.

[The Idler]

Workers' Liberty have published the following article entitled Counterfire: Rees-ites emerge ... sort of (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/03/10/%E2%80%98counterfire%E2%80%99-rees-ites-emerge-sort)
John Rees, Lindsey German and their sixty or so supporters have emerged from a seemly period of mourning to establish themselves as a ‘distinct’ political formation. The Counterfire website (http://www.counterfire.org/), which started life as a reference point for the Left Platform during the not-so-heated faction fight in the Socialist Workers Party, has whimpered into life once more with Rees and German as listed editors.
In stark contrast to James Connolly’s rallying cry, Counterfire and the stated intentions of the group supporting it are very modest indeed. First and foremost, the new venture claims to be a “news and theory website”. There’s no talk of ‘organisation’, though one very clearly exists. No explicit declaration of ‘revolutionary socialism’, simply phrase-mongering about undefined “movements” and promises of “expertise on major socio-political themes”. ...


Anyone know what all the talk of "movements" is about? In terms of Rees-German I take it to mean united/SWP fronts rather than other independent left organisations?

[YKTMX]

To clarify, our running estimate is 1200-1500 members by any working definition not concocted for the sole purpose of inflating figures.

While the party may have an interest in inflating membership figures, the implication that you, and the CPGB, are just "disinterested observers" is clearly dead on arrival.

I think, if people think this is important, they'd be sensible enough to take both sets of numbers with a pinch of salt.

Oh, and while we're at it, when is the CPGB going to release its membership figures and disclose fully where it gets its money from?

I wonder how the cuts at the Department of Defence might affect the Weekly Worker...

[zimmerwald1915]

I think the fifth International will be a turning point in either forcing broad unity between those two orgs. or rendering them permanently irrelevant.
My my you have a lot of illusions in the Fifth International, don't you?

[/derail]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Alan Woods wants in on the new International, but can this permanent entry by the British-centric IMT be compatible with permanent entryism in the Labour Party or the Canadian New Democratic Party, both of which are affiliated to the rival "Socialist International"?

P.S. - I don't have "revolutionist" illusions, but I have great expectations, on the level of the International Workingmen's Association and International Working Union of Socialist Parties.