SWP'ers behaving "thuggishly"

[Q]

Last weekend, on the Marxism 2010 event organised by the SWP, a member of the CPGB (and later SWP) was verbally attacked and threatened for handing out leaflets (!) to announce a fringe meeting. When I read the article, I had a few deja vu's. Especially the "leech" thing was something which I encountered on a regular in the Dutch SP before they kicked me out and, incidentally, another comrade of ours was kicked out of the SP youth organisation for the exact "crime" of handing out leaflets (in this case to mobilise for an anti-racism demonstration).

In any case, happy reading:


Thuggery at ‘Marxism’

Claire Fisher reports on a disturbing outbreak of thuggery at Marxism 2010 - and Zuri Zurowski continues the story

http://cpgb.org.uk/images/1004007.jpg

I’m writing as a member of the SWP. Attending Marxism has always been enjoyable for me - the opportunity to listen to debates within a left forum can be inspiring and help foster the belief that we can move forward together.

I’ll admit I have not always been unflinchingly supportive of the CC’s strategies and tactics, which often suggest a suppression of party democracy, combined with a drive to ban any contact between party members and the rest of the left. Attending conference this year provided some of the best ammunition to my cannon in this respect, but I will not go into that here.

This criticism, however, did not stop me from giving my support to the organisation - indeed, I hoped that my rank and file comrades would be open to my criticisms, and even share them, and that the CC could eventually be challenged. I did not believe that I should desert a party that had so much to offer in terms of dedication and potential. Unfortunately, circumstances have now changed as a result of a literal, and rather brutal, expression by rank and file comrades of this seemingly all-pervading attitude in opposition to openness.

I accompanied CPGB comrade Zuri Zurowski to Martin Smith’s talk, ‘How to stop the EDL’, and waited outside whilst he handed out flyers for the CPGB’s fringe debate, ‘Bash the fash?’ After seeing Zuri approached by an officious-looking SWP member I intervened. He was asked to stop handing out flyers on the basis that the Institute of Education was ‘ours’ - ie, the SWP’s - building (going against all notions of communal property, I might add) and secondly that Zuri was not a member of the SWP, which obviously meant that he had forfeited all rights to open and democratic conduct in a public space.

I was incensed by this reasoning, so I took some flyers and started to distribute them myself. I was met with a barrage of abuse and physical intimidation, to which I retorted: “I am a member of the SWP.” The comrades ignored my pleas to be allowed to issue an invitation to a crucial debate taking place outside the festival’s timetable.

Claire Fisher

►

Eventually, I was approached in a more forceful manner. “I politely asked you to stop handing out the flyers,” claimed a steward in a not-so-polite tone, to which I replied: “I politely refuse because I don’t accept your reasoning.” After all, I wasn’t doing anything to jeopardise the security of the event or its visitors. Why was I not permitted to distribute information that I thought was relevant and directly linked to the subject matter discussed in the auditorium? The answer remained the same: “This is our building.”

One of the stewards attempted to rip the leaflets out of my hand. “Typically Stalinist!” he spat at me, referring to the text that he had glanced at for a mere second. “Are you joking?” I asked. “I was born in the eastern bloc - I hate Stalinism.” But the steward was not to be reasoned with. With the situation escalating, I added that it was in fact him who was a ‘Stalinist’ because he was attempting to suppress dissent. This was a piece of heat-of-the-moment vitriol on my part and not terribly well thought out (there are Stalinists that are more open to debate than the average SWP loyalist), though I cannot say that it didn’t contain the proverbial kernel of truth. How democratic a workers’ state can arise under the leadership of a party that claims public spaces as ‘theirs’ and considers itself entitled to hold a monopoly on information within them?

“Build your own organisation instead of leeching off us,” the comrade foamed. I’m glad he said that, because his language told me something about a mindset commonly found in the SWP. One can only describe it as textbook sectarianism - as far as he was concerned, everything played a subordinate role to the interests of the SWP apparatus. Other left organisations were not to be debated - they were seen as competition first and foremost. Hence the comrades’ almost corporate rationale: this is our territory, our money, our ideas. Want to have your own group? Set up your own stall outside. Isolated coexistence? No problem. Debate, exchange of ideas, revolutionary unity? Never.

The SWP member who had ‘convinced’ Claire to leave advanced towards to me shouting abuse. When I got too close to the entrance for his liking, he ordered me to move over to an arbitrarily chosen spot, assuming the tone and posture of the International Brigades general in the closing scene of Ken Loach’s Land and freedom, many a young Trostkyist’s favourite movie. When I disobeyed, the bully closed in on me and threatened to “rip my head off” amidst a barrage of abuse. “I’m not the kind of guy you want to mess with,” he informed me. I explained that I had absolutely no intention of entering the auditorium, but I was not going to be intimidated by threats of violence. “If you think I threatened you, then you’re fucking weak,” the enraged thug shouted. Figuratively speaking, I was gobsmacked. Surely “I’m going to rip your head off” is, by anyone’s definition, a threat.

I continued to hand out leaflets and tried my best to ignore further provocations that are not worth preserving for posterity. A few steps away, the steward who had called me a Stalinist pointed in our direction and smugly explained the situation to a sneering Dominic Kavakeb, whose talk on ‘Iran today’ we had followed a day earlier with some interest.

Four SWP stewards had assembled by now and passively stood by. Their comrade’s efforts at intimidation persisted for at least five or 10 minutes, but no attempt was made to take him on a leash and he eventually left on his own account. When everyone else cleared off, I found myself alone with two SWP stewards who had hitherto remained in the background. They looked a little embarrassed and took it upon themselves to disassociate themselves from their aggressive comrade. “We might have political differences with you,” they admitted, “but this was not OK”. Fair enough, but I wished they had had the courage to voice these sentiments earlier. As it stood, I wasn’t sure whether I would be able to meet their request not to “let this reflect on our organisation”.

A little later, we spotted one of the SWP stewards outside the ULU building. My friend Mick, an SWP member, approached him to inquire about the incident. The best excuse the steward could come up with was that the SWP comrades had been “really stressed out” because they had anticipated a violent disruption by “350 EDL members”. The logic was priceless: apparently, the English Defence League stress factor led several SWP members to crack down on a lone communist handing out leaflets. But, of course, this was not an honest apology; the same steward had simply walked past me some 20 minutes earlier without batting an eyelid. Besides, it isn’t hard to imagine the hoo-hah the SWP would have drummed up to ‘defend Marxism against the Nazi EDL’ had there actually been any credible intelligence regarding a visit from the drinking class mob. The same steward that could have intervened earlier was now sheepishly promising to “look into the matter and find out who that guy was”. Let’s see what comes out of that.

My SWP friend, a positive thinking person, has a tendency to see no evil when it comes to his party. “We’re only dealing with human beings,” he says. That is all well and good, but what he fails to realise is that these are systemic rather than individual errors, stemming from a certain political culture. In a political environment such as the SWP’s, where the advance of the working class movement and genuine Marxist unity is subordinated to the short-term interests of the organisation - especially its bureaucratic caste - it should come as no surprise that open debate is stifled, the rank and file manoeuvred away from ‘dangerous’ ideas, and people such as ourselves denounced as leeches.

Ironically, the way SWP comrades dealt with us at Marxism was not dissimilar to the treatment Claire received from an EDL thug in East London earlier this year. Her crime was the same back then: she had been handing out communist leaflets.

Zuri Zurowski

[Widerstand]

I've seen and heard of a lot of crap that doesn't belong in the scene, but going to such extremes as death threats, because someone hands out leaflets, is new and estranging to me. I'm wondering, is this kind of behavior common in communist organisations?

[bcbm]

who cares?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

who cares?

Who cares whether you say "who cares?" or not?

[Coggeh]

Why were the CPGB at SWP's marxism event? Its seems petit that they would go in and hand out leaflets to an another "socialist" organizations event. Though in saying that we (CWI) often have members of the IBT here in ireland distributing leaflets before and after events and giving points of view during the discussion along with the SWP and other organisations. So while I don't think the CPGB are the best but the SWP's actions are at best hypocritical.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Is this a "minor incident", indicative of things that go on all the time or is it an isolated exception? According to Claire Fisher its indicative of a pathology in the organization. Mark Steel compared his time in the SWP to a " love affair gone wrong".

The SWP has had recent splits and expulsions.

Could this emerge as a "scandal"? Would Richard Seymour's blog pick it up?

[Blackscare]

This was the UK SWP?

[bcbm]

Who cares whether you say "who cares?" or not?

you, apparently.

[Q]

Why were the CPGB at SWP's marxism event? Its seems petit that they would go in and hand out leaflets to an another "socialist" organizations event. Though in saying that we (CWI) often have members of the IBT here in ireland distributing leaflets before and after events and giving points of view during the discussion along with the SWP and other organisations. So while I don't think the CPGB are the best but the SWP's actions are at best hypocritical.
For clarity: the leaflet, as I understand it, was about announcing a fringe meeting at the Marxism event. So it was very legitimate and relevant.


This was the UK SWP?
Yes.

[DaringMehring]

There's an etiquette about distributing materials at somebody else's event. When one group puts out the effort and money to get an event together, they're not always ready to have other groups thronging to piggyback off of them. And that's not unreasonable. Usually, if you want to leaflet etc. at somebody else's event, you should ask them beforehand. Generally, something can be worked out.

To say this isolated event is "thuggish" is false. As for the culture of the SWP, I don't know much, but when I was in the UK, I was impressed with the SWP. I think they're the biggest communist group in the UK, with a membership that is multiple times larger than the largest communist groups in the USA, despite the UK's smaller population. They've been doing something right.

[ed miliband]

Besides, it isn’t hard to imagine the hoo-hah the SWP would have drummed up to ‘defend Marxism against the Nazi EDL’ had there actually been any credible intelligence regarding a visit from the drinking class mob.


...? Drinking class? Cutting class analysis there.

[scarletghoul]

SWP acting antidemocratic and with bourgeois mentality ? Surprise, surprise.

This party really is the lowest of the low, for this and many other reasons.

[Wanted Man]

Why were the CPGB at SWP's marxism event? Its seems petit that they would go in and hand out leaflets to an another "socialist" organizations event. Though in saying that we (CWI) often have members of the IBT here in ireland distributing leaflets before and after events and giving points of view during the discussion along with the SWP and other organisations. So while I don't think the CPGB are the best but the SWP's actions are at best hypocritical.

What's with the constant use of "petit" to describe people's actions?

[9]

To say this isolated event is "thuggish" is false.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/swp-member-calls-t137657/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/psc-swp-attack-t99515/index5.html



I think they're the biggest communist group in the UK, with a membership that is multiple times larger than the largest communist groups in the USA, despite the UK's smaller population. They've been doing something right.I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion. Logically, the size of a revolutionary organization should correspond to the general level of class consciousness at a given time. In periods of relatively lower class consciousness, communist organizations are not going to appeal to large numbers. Generally, during such periods, the 'successful' (with recruiting) organizations are successful because they have adapted to the lower levels of consciousness (e.g. by watering down their program/becoming increasingly reformist, opportunistic etc.), hence the broader appeal. And from my understanding of the SWP, the shoe fits.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

We've had SWP members at events I've been to, that were set up by us and they've handed out their material. The difference is, we didn't get abusive. They can do it if they want, its very hypocritical of SWP to act in this way when they routinely do things like this themselves.

[Hit The North]

I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion. Logically, the size of a revolutionary organization should correspond to the general level of class consciousness at a given time. In periods of relatively lower class consciousness, communist organizations are not going to appeal to large numbers. Generally, during such periods, the 'successful' (with recruiting) organizations are successful because they have adapted to the lower levels of consciousness (e.g. by watering down their program/becoming increasingly reformist, opportunistic etc.), hence the broader appeal. And from my understanding of the SWP, the shoe fits.

Well, the SWP is tiny in the greater scheme of things and its membership has shrunk during this period of lowering class consciousness. Meanwhile, its "What we stand for" platform has not changed one iota.

Of course, in order to fit in with your "reasoning" the SWP really should be much smaller than it presently is. Too bad for them, eh?

Moreover, your "reasoning" must mean that we should look for the most microscopic and unpopular organisation (perhaps comprising of a single individual suffering from self-loathing and on the verge of a split!) in order to find the most revolutionary. Way to go!

[9]

Originally Posted by BtB
Meanwhile, its "What we stand for" platform has not changed one iota.On the other hand, if the membership criteria is very low, the platform - which is somewhat vague as it is - isn't really going to tell you much of anything about the actual views of the membership, is it?



Moreover, your "reasoning" must mean that we should look for the most microscopic and unpopular organisation (perhaps comprising of a single individual suffering from self-loathing and on the verge of a split!) in order to find the most revolutionary.No, I don't think it means that at all, and I think you know it. What I am saying isn't controversial. Unless you're denying that there's a relationship between class consciousness and the appeal of communist revolution (and therefore the ability of a principled revolutionary organization to recruit in large numbers), I really don't see what your contention is. And obviously I am talking about differences that are actually substantial enough to be relevant (i.e differences in the thousands); differences in the single digits are too insignificant to account for anything.

What would be your explanation for the fact that organizations like e.g. in the US, the CPUSA and SPUSA have membership figures in the thousands when class consciousness is at the level it is? Is it because they're "doing something right?" Or is the opposite perhaps closer to the truth?

[The Red Next Door]

I do not understand why one should make a big deal, out of that. We are all comrades so it should be okay to hand out flyers. This is the type of behavior that cause us not to get our shit together, We have capitalists government all of the world wanting to crush. The revolutionaries and the working class people, and then you have people wanting kill another fellow comrade over handing out flyers, Is this where the left is heading to? Please tell me not so.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As much as I don't agree with the CPGB their member has done nothing wrong in handing out leaflets for a talk at the event the talk was being held. These SWP members are bang out of order and have made themselves look stupid. I have heard other cases like this where the SWP has had a feeling of overblown importance where they feel they have to impose themselves on other organisations and show their superiority.

[The Grey Blur]

Go through my old posts. I've been threatened with violence by SWP members before for things as petty as disagreeing with their analysis of 'state capitalism' :laugh:

Mentalists.

[Devrim]

On the other hand, if the membership criteria is very low, the platform - which is somewhat vague as it is - isn't really going to tell you much of anything about the actual views of the membership, is it?

The SWP is well known for recruiting anybody with vaguely left ideas. Of course the practice is deeply problematic purely on an organisational level. How can you have a democratic organisation where the majority of members don't understand its politics. Turnover is correspondingly high, and much of the paper membership is inactive.


Meanwhile, its "What we stand for" platform has not changed one iota.

I think it has. Let's have a look at it:


Where We Stand
Fighting to end capitalism and war

We live in an world where:
* Half the population lives on less than $2 a day
* 67% of the wealth is owned by just 2% of the population
* The US spends $400 billion a year on weapons
* It would take $324 billion to end extreme poverty worldwide
But this is also a time of hope. Over recent years we have witnessed growing international protest movements demanding ‘another world is possible — another world is necessary’. We have seen millions across the world take to the streets in opposition to Bush and Blair’s war and occupation of Iraq. The SWP has played a key role in all these movements.


For socialism

The present system cannot be patched up — it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people’s lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.


For internationalism

We live in a world economy dominated by huge corporations. Only by fighting together across national boundaries can we challenge the rich and powerful who dominate the globe. The struggle for socialism can only be successful if it is a worldwide struggle.
This was demonstrated by the experience of Russia where an isolated socialist revolution was crushed by the power of the world market — a market it could only contend with by becoming state capitalist. In Eastern Europe and China similar states were later established.


Against racism, imperialism and oppression

We oppose everything which turns workers from one country against those from another. We oppose all immigration controls and campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We support the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence and we support all genuine national liberation movements. We campaign for real social, political and economic equality for woman and for an end to all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.


Revolutionary party

Those who rule our society are powerful because they are organised — they control the wealth, media, courts and the military. They use their power to limit and contain opposition. To combat that power, working people have to be organised as well. The Socialist Workers Party aims to bring together activists from the movement and working class. A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.
We are committed to fight for peace, equality, justice and socialism. Join us. (http://www.swp.org.uk/forms/join-us)


Without going into details I feel pretty sure that the first section is reasonably new. It refers to recent events and politicians. That isn't really the point though. It says very little anyway. More to the point the SWP will recruit people who don't even agree with this.


Of course, in order to fit in with your "reasoning" the SWP really should be much smaller than it presently is. Too bad for them, eh?

I think that you have missed the point that was being made.


No, I don't think it means that at all, and I think you know it. What I am saying isn't controversial. Unless you're denying that there's a relationship between class consciousness and the appeal of communist revolution (and therefore the ability of a principled revolutionary organization to recruit in large numbers), I really don't see what your contention is. And obviously I am talking about differences that are actually substantial enough to be relevant (i.e differences in the thousands); differences in the single digits are too insignificant to account for anything.

I think this effects the majority of organisations calling themselves socialist. The SWP is certainly much smaller today than it was in the 1980s when the level of class struggle was higher.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

The SWP is well known for recruiting anybody with vaguely left ideas. Of course the practice is deeply problematic purely on an organisational level. How can you have a democratic organisation where the majority of members don't understand its politics. Turnover is correspondingly high, and much of the paper membership is inactive.


The above is largely true, although you underestimate the longevity of the majority of currently active members and their knowledge of the SWP's politics. However, the problems you identify do exist to an extent. I'm open to suggestions of a better way of maintaining a revolutionary current in the British working class. None of the SWP's challengers appear to have a clue, if the evidence of their membership and activities is to be believed.


More to the point the SWP will recruit people who don't even agree with this.Of course, you have the evidence to back up this claim?


I think that you have missed the point that was being made.Not at all, I was lampooning his "reasoning" which was based on the mistaken view that the SWP was expanding during a level of contraction in the class struggle and this was apparent proof of its dodgy politics. As you, yourself, point out, the SWP


is certainly much smaller today than it was in the 1980s when the level of class struggle was higher.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The SWP is well known for recruiting anybody with vaguely left ideas. Of course the practice is deeply problematic purely on an organisational level. How can you have a democratic organisation where the majority of members don't understand its politics. Turnover is correspondingly high, and much of the paper membership is inactive.

I don't understand why this is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good chance to engage people and win people over to your ideas. What do you propose we should do to engage people?

[Widerstand]

I don't understand why this is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good chance to engage people and win people over to your ideas. What do you propose we should do to engage people?

I think the point made was that they aren't winning people over to their ideas, but merely making them sign membership stuff and failing to educate them.

[scarletghoul]

I don't understand why this is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good chance to engage people and win people over to your ideas. What do you propose we should do to engage people?
There's a difference between engaging people and getting anyone vaguely leftist to be a full member to bulk up your official membership numbers

Most of the SWP's actions seem to be based around the cardinal principle of "get as many fucking members as possible!!" (or "sell as many fucking newspapers as possible!!"). I don't think this is a good way for a socialist party to act.

As for how to engage people, there are plenty of things they could do. Parties who are much smaller than the SWP have been able to do more to engage people (for example, the tiny CPGB-ML has been involved in a lot of events and so on and has had appearances on Press TV and has a much better internet presence than the SWP.). With such high membership and probably much more money at their disposal, the SWP should be able to engage people quite easily. But they don't.

The root of this incorrect approach is the prioritising the immediate interests of the Party over the general revolutionary cause. They put effort into getting more members and selling more papers, rather than spreading consciousness among the people, and as the OP has shown they have no sense of comradeship with other socialist parties. They are selfish and greedy.

Just some uhh thoughts..

[Devrim]

I don't understand why this is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good chance to engage people and win people over to your ideas. What do you propose we should do to engage people?

Do you think it is really a good idea to recruit people to your organisation who don't agree with your politics?

Devrim

[Lyev]

There's a difference between engaging people and getting anyone vaguely leftist to be a full member to bulk up your official membership numbers

Most of the SWP's actions seem to be based around the cardinal principle of "get as many fucking members as possible!!" (or "sell as many fucking newspapers as possible!!"). I don't think this is a good way for a socialist party to act.

As for how to engage people, there are plenty of things they could do. Parties who are much smaller than the SWP have been able to do more to engage people (for example, the tiny CPGB-ML has been involved in a lot of events and so on and has had appearances on Press TV and has a much better internet presence than the SWP.). With such high membership and probably much more money at their disposal, the SWP should be able to engage people quite easily. But they don't.

The root of this incorrect approach is the prioritising the immediate interests of the Party over the general revolutionary cause. They put effort into getting more members and selling more papers, rather than spreading consciousness among the people, and as the OP has shown they have no sense of comradeship with other socialist parties. They are selfish and greedy.

Just some uhh thoughts..Shouldn't the interests of the party be the "general revolutionary cause"? I think there's a slight contradiction in what you're saying here. Whilst I agree that the amount of members a party can recruit is not always in direct correlation to a higher level of socialist consciousness within the party, I would argue that "getting more members and selling more papers" is often conducive to an organisation being able to spread consciousness with more ease. More members means more money and same with selling papers, and if you're selling lots of papers then that is also spreading consciousness, wouldn't you say? I don't understand why people often portray paper-selling as a bad thing. Although, it's probably not a good idea to recruit people that don't fully understand your party just for their money. Why is recruiting members and selling papers a bad thing?? And, to confront the original issue at hand: aren't there bastards in every organisation? But if there's seemingly a much higher level of rude and abrasive people within the SWP, what it is about party that leads to this?

[Sam_b]

I forgot I was in a big bad ol' oragnisation that does everything wrong.

Cheers for this, i'm off to join the CPGB.

[Q]

I forgot I was in a big bad ol' oragnisation that does everything wrong.

Cheers for this, i'm off to join the CPGB.

That's one way of dodging. But I wasn't expecting anything more to be honest.

[Sam_b]

Its not particularly 'dodging'. Perhaps i'm sick of the repetativeness of the Q mindset, the constant posting of either:

1. IMT internal documents as an attempt to try and show how your 'side' is better.
2. CPGB articles about how the SWP is bad.

Now, would you like me to take this largely unsourced article of yours as verbatim, the usual 'ultimate proof' that our tendency is objectively 'bad'? Seeing as I was not at Marxism this year, and I guess that neither were you seeing as you must consider this article absolute fact with no agenda, I think I would rather talk to people who would know: you know, people I know in the SWP who were there: and find out for myself.

All this article really smacks of is a minor incident that has as usual been blown out of all proportions. Very similar to the majority of articles you've posted, such as the ones lauding that the SWP might split - which turned out to be untrue again and again. So why should I take this as fact, and why should I take this as valid?

I for one do not want to feed to rumour mill, and need to justiy or condemn something I had absolutely no part in, or need to talk up the party to those who would cheer equally as loudly for the party to split as they would any collapse of capital. There's more important things to be done, and indeed more important things that the SWP are active in and prioritising that you are eerily silent about.

[DaringMehring]

How pointless is it to spend time attacking a successful socialist organization like the SWP. Leave that kind of demoralizing to the MI-5 operatives.

The argument that what is important is not the size of the party but the internal class/socialist consciousness, is just stupid. A party of ten guys all with high consciousness will not be able to make a revolution.

Both size and consciousness matter! And the SWP has grown to a good size, by left-wing standards.

There are plenty of workers out there to be recruited to socialism. The sea is not running out of fishes any time soon. There is no reason to fight other socialist organizations over them. That is just lazy and destructive.

Not to mention, that these attacks against the SWP as thuggish etc. are nearly identical in form to right-wing attacks on unions --- the members are acting like thugs, the union "bosses" have all the control, its like a mafia, etc. It's just a reapplication of that same right-wing trope.

We need a party that is willing to put its own growth as a valuable political objective, without throwing away principles, like the SWP. Parties that don't try to get in a position to take the power are not worthy of being called parties. That is a problem of a lot of the organizations in the USA today.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

most of their size is only on paper.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Do you think it is really a good idea to recruit people to your organisation who don't agree with your politics?

Devrim

No, but I don't think making things excessively elitist and closed is a good idea. I understand your argument now, in the SWP's case it is not to engage people but to get as many as possible.

[Sam_b]

most of their size is only on paper.

and how would you know?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

and how would you know?

I got connections.

[Arlekino]

Anyway left wingers all have similar ideology and why we need such many Socialist Parties with different names. Sounds naive but I think would be great idea to unite all Socialist and Communist parties.

[Quail]

Most of the SWP's actions seem to be based around the cardinal principle of "get as many fucking members as possible!!" (or "sell as many fucking newspapers as possible!!"). I don't think this is a good way for a socialist party to act.


From what I've seen, I would have to agree with this. Every time I see someone from the SWP at a demo, they stand holding the paper up so that everyone knows what organisation they're from, and it looks to me, from the outside, that they're there primarily to sell papers and get people to join. It often appears as though that is their concern above the actual action. Perhaps that isn't true of all SWP branches, but it's the impression I get in Sheffield.

[Sam_b]

I don't think you do have connections, Wolfie.


Every time I see someone from the SWP at a demo, they stand holding the paper up so that everyone knows what organisation they're from, and it looks to me, from the outside

Don't you regard a party newspaper as a method of communication to the class of what we stand for?


to sell papers and get people to join

Good!

[Quail]

Don't you regard a party newspaper as a method of communication to the class of what we stand for?
It is, but it often seems as though SWP members are hijacking a demo to promote their organisation, which I don't think is right. I have no problem with handing out papers, but when you're using every opportunity to promote your organisation, you're distracting people from the actual point of the demo.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I don't think you do have connections, Wolfie

I do acctually, in one of the b'ham student branches, why I even went on a three week archaeological dig with one of the senior members.


Don't you regard a party newspaper as a method of communication to the class of what we stand for?

Not if you turn up to events that are not about the SWP such as pickets, union rallys etc and try to flog your papers, its insulting to the workers on strike and devalues other issues (such as anti-fash marches), just so you can make a few more sales.

[Sam_b]

It is, but it often seems as though SWP members are hijacking a demo to promote their organisation, which I don't think is right. I have no problem with handing out papers, but when you're using every opportunity to promote your organisation, you're distracting people from the actual point of the demo.

Deine 'hijacking' a demo. The rest is also nonsense. I think you're saying it out of the fact that we have good numbers on demos. The CWI usually hand out something, FRFI, AWL...I don't see accusations of these groups 'hijacking' a demo. Indeed, it should be a tactic to bing around likeminded people in united fronts and encourage them to join a revolutionary organisation.


Not if you turn up to events that are not about the SWP such as pickets, union rallys etc and try to flog your papers, its insulting to the workers on strike and devalues other issues (such as anti-fash marches), just so you can make a few more sales.

Wow, more unsourced nonsense. Where do I begin?

SWP members going to picket lines are workers, and are there to show solidarity with the strikers. Why does it matter to you if we wish to sell our paper and try to get unionised workers to join our organisation? Would you rather have workers completely alienated from groups, and left out of the wider struggle? What about the trade union presence we have within unions? Should we not be allowed to sell our paper there? You don't seem to understand the role of newspapers in a revolutionary organisation, and attacking the SWP from a minority sectarian position, without any knowledge of the actual base at hand.

[Quail]

Deine 'hijacking' a demo. The rest is also nonsense. I think you're saying it out of the fact that we have good numbers on demos. The CWI usually hand out something, FRFI, AWL...I don't see accusations of these groups 'hijacking' a demo. Indeed, it should be a tactic to bing around likeminded people in united fronts and encourage them to join a revolutionary organisation.


When I go to a demo, I go there to support that action. I don't stand there holding a copy of Resistance on my shoulder with the sole intention of recruiting people. Talking to people and getting them interested is fine, but the SWP round here seem to spend more time trying to recruit people and sell papers at demos than actually supporting the action, which is what I dislike about them. Recruiting members should never be more important than supporting a demo or a strike.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Wow, more unsourced nonsense. Where do I begin?

SWP members going to picket lines are workers, and are there to show solidarity with the strikers. Why does it matter to you if we wish to sell our paper and try to get unionised workers to join our organisation? Would you rather have workers completely alienated from groups, and left out of the wider struggle? What about the trade union presence we have within unions? Should we not be allowed to sell our paper there? You don't seem to understand the role of newspapers in a revolutionary organisation, and attacking the SWP from a minority sectarian position, without any knowledge of the actual base at hand.

If your only their for solidarity why not bring useful things such as food, drinks (which some SWP members do, I admit), if your showing support then why do you need to sell papers? Surely its not about recrutiment but showing solidarity across left-wing groups, oh wait, the SWP doesn't like solidarity unless they are incharge.

If your members are part of the Union then they should already be on the picket line, and I don't give a fuck what you do in your union groups.

I'm not attacking, I'm making common criticisms that I know for a fact are echoed across the UK left, including SWP members themselves.

[Sam_b]

Recruiting members should never be more important than supporting a demo or a strike.

So in your opinion you cannot go on a demo and try and make influences amongst the working class? Wow.


If your only their for solidarity why not bring useful things such as food, drinks (which some SWP members do, I admit), if your showing support then why do you need to sell papers? Surely its not about recrutiment but showing solidarity across left-wing groups, oh wait, the SWP doesn't like solidarity unless they are incharge.

The last time I joined in on a strike the afternoon we held a sale with all contributions going to the strike fund. Allow me to ignore the sectarian shite and the end of this, however, which you will not be able to back up with real evidence.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

So in your opinion you cannot go on a demo and try and make influences amongst the working class? Wow.

Not by flogging crap papers




The last time I joined in on a strike the afternoon we held a sale with all contributions going to the strike fund. Allow me to ignore the sectarian shite and the end of this, however, which you will not be able to back up with real evidence.

Your personal anecdote is a logical falicy, and doesn't apply to the SWP as a group. Oh, well then, im sure the SWP's activites in the STW colition and UAF have nothing to do with Sectarian motivations...

[Quail]

So in your opinion you cannot go on a demo and try and make influences amongst the working class? Wow.

Actually that's not what I said. I said that the priority should be supporting the action, and not recruiting members. Getting people interested in an organisation should not be the main focus of an action.

[Sam_b]

Your personal anecdote is a logical falicy, and doesn't apply to the SWP as a group

Err....you were just talking about your own experiences, and your connections, which also count as the same.


Getting people interested in an organisation should not be the main focus of an action.

This could be argued as a base Leninist tactic. Nobody here suggested recrutiment as a main priority.

[DaringMehring]

So this thread turned from attacking the SWP for supposedly stopping people from leafletting at one of their party functions to attacking the SWP for selling papers on marches, etc.

Ok. No agenda there...

The idea that SWP turns marches, actions, and so on into personal promotion is a real straw man. When I was in the UK, I went "fellow traveled" with the SWP, and the stuff my local branch did around mass work was always focused on developing whatever the struggle was - anti-fa, pro-NHS, anti-zionist war, etc. The people I met were of course of varying talents, but among them were some really knowledgeable and inspirational comrades.

It's just a waste to attack the SWP. If you really think they're so bad and you're better, then take it to the workers. There's millions and millions of them who could be connected up to socialism. Then you'd be doing good work bringing people in to the left-wing movement, instead of pathetic and transparent infighting trying to fight over the small amount that someone else already brought in to the movement (possibly by engaging at a march and giving materials...)

[Jolly Red Giant]

Handing out leaflets should hardly be considered a criminal offence.

I remember one particular incident when the SWP turned up at the CWI conference in Ireland handing out a leaflet attacking the CWI for not entering an electoral alliance with them. The leaflets were snapped up by those in attendance. Two weeks later the CWI handed out a reply at a SWP event. The SWP leadership ordered their members not to take them. Later when Peter Hadden wrote his critique of the politics of the SWP in Ireland, their members were ordered not to read it.

[Sam_b]

No they weren't. We got copies taken over here as well. Most of the guys I now have read it.

[this is an invasion]

I'm seeing the word "party" a lot in this thread, but so far it's just been really boring.

[Quail]

This could be argued as a base Leninist tactic. Nobody here suggested recrutiment as a main priority.
Actually it was a point that I made, because that's the impression that I get of the SWP around where I live. It might not be true of your branch, I was just talking about the SWP where I live.


The idea that SWP turns marches, actions, and so on into personal promotion is a real straw man.
It's not a straw man. It's a criticism of the impression the SWP (around where I live) gives.

I never argued against engaging with people about my ideas, but I think that recruiting members should come after supporting an action, which from what I've seen, doesn't happen with the SWP. However, I did say that that was just my observation.

[Jolly Red Giant]

No they weren't.
Yes they were - I was there when Kieran Allen stood up and ordered them not to touch it. The fact that the rank-and-file probably ignored him says more about the leadership than anything else.

[Hit The North]

I think the point made was that they aren't winning people over to their ideas, but merely making them sign membership stuff and failing to educate them.

Nevertheless, the point is moot because the accusation is groundless. The SWP produces original work, reprints classic socialist literature, holds regular public meetings, weekly branch meetings, hosts the largest season of political meetings under the banner of Marxism, and draws its members and its 'periphery' into practical campaigns. So there is ample opportunity for 'education'.

If anything, it is the pressure to be active and the commitment this entails which most often leads to people falling away. It is easy to win many people over to the ideas of revolutionary socialism, but giving them the patience, confidence, pigheadedness, or whatever it is they require, to maintain their political enthusiasm during contraction of class struggle is the hard part. Being an active socialist isn't a purely ideological decision, it is an emotional commitment as well.

[Sam_b]

I'm not sure they're strictly proletarian

It was never an order.

[Lyev]

^ I think you accidentally copy and pasted that quote from the discussion we were having in chit-chat.

[Hit The North]

Actually it was a point that I made, because that's the impression that I get of the SWP around where I live. It might not be true of your branch, I was just talking about the SWP where I live.


You need to understand the role of Socialist Worker as not only a tool for propaganda, but also a practical tool for linking workers struggle. I mean, there's no sports page, crossword, TV guide or celebrity gossip - it's a socialist paper reporting on the class struggle. Moreover, any serious revolutionary organisation sees its role as becoming a resource through which class struggle can be generalised and so recruiting those who can be drawn into activity becomes a logical objective.

Of course, whether workers buy the paper or join the party is not a prerequisite for socialist worker supporting their struggle, which is why you always see comrades from the SWP at picket lines and demos - even if they're getting abused for their trouble.

It's also worth noting that the accusations of 'hi-jacking' demonstrations or strikes is most often made by either trade union bureaucrats who want to retain control over the rank and file or Labour Party reformists who want to keep the economic struggle separate from the political struggle.

[9]

Originally Posted by Devrim
I think this effects the majority of organisations calling themselves socialist.Yes, no doubt.


Originally Posted by BtB
Not at all, I was lampooning his "reasoning" which was based on the mistaken view that the SWP was expanding during a level of contraction in the class struggle and this was apparent proof of its dodgy politics."his" reasoning was based on no such thing, in fact. I said that the SWP is still 'successful' with recruiting in a period of lower class struggle. This isn't saying that the membership is expanding, but that it is still able to recruit and sustain membership figures apparently in, iirc, the low thousands (on paper, anyhow). If you are admitting that your organization recruits "anyone with vaguely left ideas" (as Devrim put it) anyway, though, I really don't see what you're disputing, other then the fact that I criticized your organization to begin with.

[9]

Also, in case it has become unclear, my comment about the SWP being more 'successful' with recruiting was in response to this:


Originally Posted by DaringMehring
I think they're the biggest communist group in the UK, with a membership that is multiple times larger than the largest communist groups in the USA, despite the UK's smaller population. They've been doing something right.I wasn't claiming that the membership is expanding, but rather, was taking issue with the claim that "a membership that is multiple times larger" is indicative of "doing something right" in a period of lower class struggle.

[Devrim]

The above is largely true, although you underestimate the longevity of the majority of currently active members and their knowledge of the SWP's politics. However, the problems you identify do exist to an extent.

I think I didn't express myself well there:


The SWP is well known for recruiting anybody with vaguely left ideas. Of course the practice is deeply problematic purely on an organisational level. How can you have a democratic organisation where the majority of members don't understand its politics? Turnover is correspondingly high, and much of the paper membership is inactive.

I didn't mean to imply that the majority of the SWP's membership didn't understand its politics. I am sure that the core membership do. What I was talking about were the problems with the practice of recruiting that way. A major upsurge in the class struggle will see large amounts of people coming to 'left' organisations. If you recruit in this way in these sort of periods to me it implies that the membership can not have control of the organisation.


I'm open to suggestions of a better way of maintaining a revolutionary current in the British working class. None of the SWP's challengers appear to have a clue, if the evidence of their membership and activities is to be believed.


I agree with '9' that membership isn't the key. I think there is another way of looking at this though. As our current put it in the 1930s. "We don't need the party then we can build the class struggle. We need the class struggle then we can build the party". A true working class party must be the creation of the class struggle itself.



More to the point the SWP will recruit people who don't even agree with this. Of course, you have the evidence to back up this claim?

I don't think that I really need to produce any. We both know that it is true. Of course, I know people who have joined the SWP whilst having different views on elections for example, which is something explicitly mentioned in the piece 'Where We Stand'.

Another example could be a young SWP member, not yourself, who when first on these forums was arguing that he would defend Britain if it was attacked in a war.


Not at all, I was lampooning his "reasoning" which was based on the mistaken view that the SWP was expanding during a level of contraction in the class struggle and this was apparent proof of its dodgy politics.I think, though I am not sure, that the SWP did have a period of expansion around the Respect campaigns and the anti-globalisation stuff. Even if it didn't it is possible for the argument to be right with an organisation not managing to expand outside of a period of class struggle, but at least slow the rate of decline.


No, but I don't think making things excessively elitist and closed is a good idea. I understand your argument now, in the SWP's case it is not to engage people but to get as many as possible.

I don't think that it is about making things 'elitist' or 'closed'. I think that it is important if you want to have a democratic organisation, for members of an organisation to understand its politics. If they don't you have an organisation where the 'leaders' make the decisions.


If anything, it is the pressure to be active and the commitment this entails which most often leads to people falling away. It is easy to win many people over to the ideas of revolutionary socialism, but giving them the patience, confidence, pigheadedness, or whatever it is they require, to maintain their political enthusiasm during contraction of class struggle is the hard part. Being an active socialist isn't a purely ideological decision, it is an emotional commitment as well.

I think one very important point here is the way that these things are approached. If you are constantly saying that the revolution is just around the corner (not something I am saying the SWP is guilty of, but we all know groups who are), then it is intrinsically demoralising when people discover that it is not. I think this is one of the things that really plays into disillusionment.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

Another example could be a young SWP member, not yourself, who when first on these forums was arguing that he would defend Britain if it was attacked in a war.


I'll put my hands up to that one. I tried to search for it, but to no avail. TBH I'm quite glad I said it, I am not infallable, and like to think politics is an ongoing process. I have een confused in the past, and have not always fully adhered to the SWP line: I did leave for a period of about eight or nine months before re-joining.

To hold this up as some short of shining example of the SWP's infallability is also a bit, well, confused. Do new and younger members of the ICC fully join the organisation adhering and knowing of every single microchosm of party platform and policy? I think its a good thing we have members in our organisation still learning aout politics and revolutionary ideology, and this gives us an ability to communicate on education on both sides, to debate, and to move forward. I don't think we should always be looking for perfect 'polished' revolutionaries where we could bring in a new layer of militants to the struggle.

Its interesting how your own personal politics can develop.

[Hit The North]

Yes, no doubt.

"his" reasoning was based on no such thing, in fact. I said that the SWP is still 'successful' with recruiting in a period of lower class struggle. This isn't saying that the membership is expanding, but that it is still able to recruit and sustain membership figures apparently in, iirc, the low thousands (on paper, anyhow). If you are admitting that your organization recruits "anyone with vaguely left ideas" (as Devrim put it) anyway, though, I really don't see what you're disputing, other then the fact that I criticized your organization to begin with.

I'm disputing your implication that an ability to maintain levels or increase levels of membership ("in the low thousands") must be indicative of opportunistic politics. In fact it's not even implied; you wrote:

Generally, during such periods, the 'successful' (with recruiting) organizations are successful because they have adapted to the lower levels of consciousness (e.g. by watering down their program/becoming increasingly reformist, opportunistic etc.), hence the broader appeal. And from my understanding of the SWP, the shoe fits.
Now you may belong to one of those small sects who pride themselves on their unpopularity amongst the working class, and see it as a validiction of their theoretical purity; or you may be one of those individuals who has not yet found the perfect party which reflects 100% every iota of your views, but that is your problem.

Meanwhile, I do not accept Devrim's claim that the SWP recruits "anyone with vaguely left ideas". The SWP tends to recruit on the basis of activity. Of course, if a young worker or student wants to make the commitment of joining the SWP, the party does not make them sit an examination first.

[Jolly Red Giant]

It was never an order.
I was actually told by a former full-timer for the SWP that Allen wanted to expel people for reading it.

[Sam_b]

Oh, great - anecdotal evidence. I have been told otherwise by Irish comrades that have moved over here now. So where does that leave us - in circles.

[Q]

Another relevant anecdote:


On Tuesday 6th July the day after Marxism 2010 finished, four supporters of the IS Tendency (a man and three women) walked into a tube station near the event venue. One was wearing a Marxism 2010 tee-shirt, another carrying a Sociailst Worker poster, the other two were more anonymous. One of the women attempted to fare dodge by doubling through the barrier. The staff on duty stopped her and insisted she buy a ticket (I know it sounds trite but they were only doing their job!). An argument ensued in which the four comrades began shouting abuse at three tube workers (two of whom were members of the RMT union).

I thought it very ironic. These four socialists (who appeared to be middle class students), had spent five days at an event called 'Marxism'; attending such courses as 'Class in the 21st century' with a meeting on 'What makes you working class?' and were probably inspired by the idea of working class power in the abstract.

Then, at what was virtually their first encounter with real working class people in the workplace after leaving the campus they showed such a high degree of contempt and hostility towards the very workers with whom they entrust the future of humanity.

As the abuse (which admittedly by now was travelling in both directions) heated up one comrade called a female tube worker 'a *****'. Presumably this socialist had attended the meeting on 'What did the Russian Revolution do for women?' or maybe the meeting on 'The New Sexism'.

This incident is known because one of the tube workers present was himself once a member of the SWP and attended Marxism on five occassions in the 80's and 90's. The incident left him feeling embarassed and ashamed.
Source (http://redstarcommando.blogspot.com/2010/07/socialism-in-21st-century-sic.html).

[Sam_b]

Let's ignore everything else, and keep posting anecdotes about how the party is objectively 'bad'!

Of course, this is sourced from a blog with a post title of 'sWpANKERS!'. Going to be real impartial.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

There's an etiquette about distributing materials at somebody else's event. When one group puts out the effort and money to get an event together, they're not always ready to have other groups thronging to piggyback off of them. And that's not unreasonable. Usually, if you want to leaflet etc. at somebody else's event, you should ask them beforehand. Generally, something can be worked out.

Comrades take note when demonstrating outside the Conservative Party conference.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another relevant anecdote:


Source (http://redstarcommando.blogspot.com/2010/07/socialism-in-21st-century-sic.html).

SPEW and the SWP should really swap electoral names. Which party is a true "workers party"?

[Serge's Fist]

Sam b's comments are disengenuous at best. Not only did we have our own comrade write a report but a member of the SWP also wrote about the situation. On top of that we have another SWP comrade who backed up Zuri at the event. This is not some new occurence, our comrade Simon Wells was attacked in 2007 by Martin Smith for the crime of leaving the SWP and turning up to Marxism.

It is also worth pointing out to comrades who are not in Britain that Marxism does accomodate other groups who pay to have stalls at the event, the CPGB did that and handed out leaflet approprietely. What we have here, is a jumped up SWP'er got upset that another take on the EDL and the BNP was on offer at Marxism, and instead of engaging with these discussions decided to act like a stalinist.

[Sam_b]

Sam b's comments are disengenuous at best

Like I said, I was not at Marxism this year and its probably better if I find out from people I know than go absolutely trusting on an article. I don't see this as an unreasonable line to take.

What I do take exception to is Q constantly positioning himself as the grand reckoner of the SWP despite having minimal contact with us, taking any article he picks up in the sect blogs as verbatim, accusing people of dodging and then hides behinds thanked posts rather than aknowledge the response. This doesn't just go for us, but for his IMT as well.

I think he's got a more vested interest in the demise of groups he doesn't like than the ruling class do.

[Devrim]

I'll put my hands up to that one.

I didn't want to embarrass anybody publicly about something which I knew they realised was pretty wrong pretty soon after they had said it.


To hold this up as some short of shining example of the SWP's infallability is also a bit, well, confused.

It isn't a shinning example. It is just one example of which everybody knows there are many. Wasn't there also a guy on here who joined the SWP for a while who was a Maoist?


Do new and younger members of the ICC fully join the organisation adhering and knowing of every single microchosm of party platform and policy?

People join the ICC on a basis of agreement with its platform (http://en.internationalism.org/platform), the Turkish version of which runs to 64 A6 pages. It is not necessary to know every position that the organisation has ever taken, but yes I think that an understanding of the basic politics is an important part of being a member of an organisation.


I think its a good thing we have members in our organisation still learning aout politics and revolutionary ideology, and this gives us an ability to communicate on education on both sides, to debate, and to move forward. I don't think we should always be looking for perfect 'polished' revolutionaries where we could bring in a new layer of militants to the struggle.

I like to think that our old members are still learning. I think that it is very obvious though that there must be some level of basic agreement to join a political organisation. I think you would agree with that if not agreeing with me how much is necessary.

For us this means an understanding of our platform. I think that the road pursued by the SWP on this by necessity leads to a situation where there is a division of labour within the organisation between those who decide the politics are the rest. I don't think that it is in anyway healthy.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This is not some new occurence, our comrade Simon Wells was attacked in 2007 by Martin Smith for the crime of leaving the SWP and turning up to Marxism.

I have been quite surprised by this whole thread really. To be quite honest the SWP must have toughened itself up a bit since I lived in the UK. The SWP I remember, after the squadists were kicked out, couldn't have punched its way out of a wet paper bag. I can remember a couple of incidents of anarchists intimidating them, and feeling quite sorry for them. From the events being mentioned here they seem to have changed a little.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Meanwhile, I do not accept Devrim's claim that the SWP recruits "anyone with vaguely left ideas".

I'd go further than that. It is anybody with a left leg who will join.


The SWP tends to recruit on the basis of activity.

What activity?


Of course, if a young worker or student wants to make the commitment of joining the SWP, the party does not make them sit an examination first.

There is a difference between making people sit an exam, which I don't think anybody actually does in reality, and letting people in whatever their politics are.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

People join the ICC on a basis of agreement with its platform (http://en.internationalism.org/platform), the Turkish version of which runs to 64 A6 pages. It is not necessary to know every position that the organisation has ever taken, but yes I think that an understanding of the basic politics is an important part of being a member of an organisation.

I like to think that our old members are still learning. I think that it is very obvious though that there must be some level of basic agreement to join a political organisation. I think you would agree with that if not agreeing with me how much is necessary.

That platform is just way too long, sorry to say. It's as too long just as Die Linke's draft is. A party program shouldn't be more than 10 pages max, and of course the voluntarist Eisenach and Gotha programs plus the Erfurt program were much shorter.

[Q]

That platform is just way too long, sorry to say. It's as too long just as Die Linke's draft is. A party program shouldn't be more than 10 pages max, and of course the voluntarist Eisenach and Gotha programs plus the Erfurt program were much shorter.

FYI: A6 = 1/4 of A4. So the ICC platform is just 16 A4 pages long (or 16 "letter" sized pages as you silly Canadians use them).

[Die Neue Zeit]

What I do take exception to is Q constantly positioning himself as the grand reckoner of the SWP despite having minimal contact with us, taking any article he picks up in the sect blogs as verbatim, accusing people of dodging and then hides behinds thanked posts rather than aknowledge the response. This doesn't just go for us, but for his IMT as well.

I think he's got a more vested interest in the demise of groups he doesn't like than the ruling class do.

Constantly? This is the first "gossip" about the mis-labelled SWP in a while. As for the IMT, it's a politically opaque organization that deserves every shred of criticism for its abuse of "sectarians" and "ultra-left."

[Devrim]

FYI: A6 = 1/4 of A4. So the ICC platform is just 16 A4 pages long (or 16 "letter" sized pages as you silly Canadians use them).

Yes, that is right, but probably less in English because we tend to use bigger typescripts than they do. The English link I gave above has it there for anyone who wants to see how long it actually is.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

I didn't want to embarrass anybody publicly about something which I knew they realised was pretty wrong pretty soon after they had said it.

Nothing to be embarrassed about. Somr memers here like to think they're infallable, but in politics there's nothing wrong with making a mistake now and then.

But yeah, I think your post is kinda fair. Bobbo would always be the one to fight tooth-and-nail to claim that the SWP is a near-pefect organisation, it is not. We do have problems with recruiting, we do have problems with a split between how things are done North and South. Going down to Marxism there hasn't been a year yet that I haven't got into a debate with another member, usually the students, and disagreed with their line. Its an ongoing process.

Indeed there was divisions set last year with the internal docuents that the CPGB republished in all their glory on the Weekly Worker, I for one including most of the militant students in Scotland supported the Neil Davidson document. I felt that this period started opening doors for more serious discussion about how we educate new and older comrades and how we deal with democracy in the party (and no, this isn't the time and place to discuss this). All that I can say is that there are flaws in the organisation, like all organisations; but we're working on them - and the position that the SWP has in the British left leaves it the most exposed to leaked documents and hearsay.

Yes, I have disagreements now and then with our line, disagreements with comrades down south especially since in my experience the Scottish section is much more well-organised and I would say perhaps to the left of the centre; but i'm still a member and continue to be a member because I think the work we have done is important and I still regard the SWP as the best vehicle to organise the working class in Britain. Any member here can critique that until they're blue in the face but i'm not particularly interested in getting into it. Thats my stand.

I believe the so-called Maoist was 'Radical'? That was definitely an error of judgement from his regional section. I remember him threatening to brick me and Pogue at RWB :laugh:

[Sam_b]

Constantly? This is the first "gossip" about the mis-labelled SWP in a while

And who is usually the first to come running to it?

[Devrim]

That platform is just way too long, sorry to say. It's as too long just as Die Linke's draft is. A party program shouldn't be more than 10 pages max, and of course the voluntarist Eisenach and Gotha programs plus the Erfurt program were much shorter.

I'm sorry, communist militants in 16 different countries that make up the membership of the ICC must have got it all wrong and 'I'll-write-my-own-programme-that-the-working-class-will-automatically-then-follow-in-my-bedroom-boy' has got it right yet again.

We will change it tomorrow if that is soon enough.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

A party program shouldn't be more than 10 pages max.

That's probably the worst criticism of any organisation I've seen posted on Revleft.

[Q]

Nothing to be embarrassed about. Somr memers here like to think they're infallable, but in politics there's nothing wrong with making a mistake now and then.

But yeah, I think your post is kinda fair. Bobbo would always be the one to fight tooth-and-nail to claim that the SWP is a near-pefect organisation, it is not. We do have problems with recruiting, we do have problems with a split between how things are done North and South. Going down to Marxism there hasn't been a year yet that I haven't got into a debate with another member, usually the students, and disagreed with their line. Its an ongoing process.

Indeed there was divisions set last year with the internal docuents that the CPGB republished in all their glory on the Weekly Worker, I for one including most of the militant students in Scotland supported the Neil Davidson document. I felt that this period started opening doors for more serious discussion about how we educate new and older comrades and how we deal with democracy in the party (and no, this isn't the time and place to discuss this). All that I can say is that there are flaws in the organisation, like all organisations; but we're working on them - and the position that the SWP has in the British left leaves it the most exposed to leaked documents and hearsay.

Yes, I have disagreements now and then with our line, disagreements with comrades down south especially since in my experience the Scottish section is much more well-organised and I would say perhaps to the left of the centre; but i'm still a member and continue to be a member because I think the work we have done is important and I still regard the SWP as the best vehicle to organise the working class in Britain. Any member here can critique that until they're blue in the face but i'm not particularly interested in getting into it. Thats my stand.

I believe the so-called Maoist was 'Radical'? That was definitely an error of judgement from his regional section. I remember him threatening to brick me and Pogue at RWB :laugh:

Despite your thinking that I'm on some kind of holy war, I thanked for this post because it is, finally, the first response I'm aiming for in posting in threads like these. That aim being to demolish the dishonest outershell that is raised whenever an organisation is critiqued and to regard critical views and, well, blunders like the one reported in the OP with a serious note as opposed to claiming that the big bad world is out to get you. Such dishonesty stands in the way of open and frank debate amongst the left and any real hopes of us working together to form a genuine class movement.

So, thank you for your considerate post. I hope many more will follow.

[Serge's Fist]

Sam, the story is nothing new, it has happened before at Marxism. Do you think such behaviour is acceptable?

[Widerstand]

That platform is just way too long, sorry to say. It's as too long just as Die Linke's draft is. A party program shouldn't be more than 10 pages max, and of course the voluntarist Eisenach and Gotha programs plus the Erfurt program were much shorter.

Die Linke is striving to replace the SPD as the social democratic big tent in Germany. Of course they have a long ass draft. Every German mainstream party has, and I honestly doubt 80% of their members ever read half of it.

I wonder why you bring up Die Linke in the first place, they are the embodiment of reactionary politics hid behind "rebel chic"-communist rhetoric.

[Spawn of Stalin]

If this story is true - which I assume it is, anyone active in any British Leninist organisation will have heard the horror stories of SWP intimidation - then surely it serves as proof that the policy of letting just about anyone join isn't working. I myself have been involved with four parties to date, and only one of them allows thugs like this in, that's the SWP. As irrelevant as the paper selling debate may seem, it is essentially the root of the problem with the SWP, they will recruit anyone, simply because anyone can sell papers on the high street/picket line/anti-war demo. And sometimes I find myself wondering if the SWP's sole purpose is just to sell shit, not just papers, has anyone checked out the SWP's online store (http://www.redstuffshop.com/index.htm)??? I wonder where all the money goes, because in nearly every respect they really are no more active than SPEW, they just kind of seem to put themselves at the front of every struggle, and I really see no logical reason why they should be in that position.

To say this isolated event is "thuggish" is false.
No it isn't, threatening to rip someone's fucking head off is extremely thuggish and should be reserved for encounters with our real enemies, not members of other socialist organisations, no matter how wrong their views may be.

As for the culture of the SWP, I don't know much, but when I was in the UK, I was impressed with the SWP. I think they're the biggest communist group in the UK, with a membership that is multiple times larger than the largest communist groups in the USA, despite the UK's smaller population. They've been doing something right.
I don't think there are very many SWPers who would consider themselves to be Communists to be honest. I still receive some SWP literature and I don't think they're advertised themselves as Communist for some years.

There is a difference between making people sit an exam, which I don't think anybody actually does in reality, and letting people in whatever their politics are.

Funnily enough, the SPGB do make you sit an exam. I had considered joining when I was making the transition from anarchism to Marxism, but the fact that you actually had to go along to their office in London.

[Sam_b]

And sometimes I find myself wondering if the SWP's sole purpose is just to sell shit, not just papers, has anyone checked out the SWP's online store (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.redstuffshop.com/index.htm)??? I wonder where all the money goes

This is insane. The CPGB has a store, I wonder where that money goes huh? This is a non-criticism. It goes into the party, like most organisations we run on a deficit.


I don't think there are very many SWPers who would consider themselves to be Communists to be honest. I still receive some SWP literature and I don't think they're advertised themselves as Communist for some years.

I don't think we ever have labelled ourselves as communist. Why does it matter? Is labelling more important to you than substance?


Do you think such behaviour is acceptable?

I really don't think its up to me to condemn nor deny. I wasn't there. There are more important people to ask those sort of questions to. Me saying it is 'unacceptable' doesn't materially change anything. Finding out within the party who is responsible for this and to prevent some occurrance like this happening again is more important. I think it would lie in the local branch structure down south, but that's just me.

I'll pop in and have a look at this thread occasionally and chip in, but I think i've said my piece and some of you can continue to rip the SWP to shreds if you like. I've got a six pack of cider and some buckfast thats needed attending to!

[Serge's Fist]

I really don't think its up to me to condemn nor deny. I wasn't there. There are more important people to ask those sort of questions to. Me saying it is 'unacceptable' doesn't materially change anything. Finding out within the party who is responsible for this and to prevent some occurrance like this happening again is more important. I think it would lie in the local branch structure down south, but that's just me.

I'll pop in and have a look at this thread occasionally and chip in, but I think i've said my piece and some of you can continue to rip the SWP to shreds if you like. I've got a six pack of cider and some buckfast thats needed attending to!

Why can't you condemn it? We will ask the SWP to publicly condemn such behaviour and assert that the SWP is for open political debate and interaction regardless of the group comrades belong to. Though I doubt the SWP leadership will do anything, this is not an isolated incident it is indicative of the hostile culture to the left SWP functionaries inculcate in members.

[Fietsketting]

And sometimes I find myself wondering if the SWP's sole purpose is just to sell shit, not just papers, has anyone checked out the SWP's online store (http://www.redstuffshop.com/index.htm)??? I wonder where all the money goes...


Who cares about the money! What the hell is a anarchist doing in your webshop? :lol:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/2039/swpd.jpg

[DaringMehring]

Why can't you condemn it? We will ask the SWP to publicly condemn such behaviour and assert that the SWP is for open political debate and interaction regardless of the group comrades belong to. Though I doubt the SWP leadership will do anything, this is not an isolated incident it is indicative of the hostile culture to the left SWP functionaries inculcate in members.

This whole thread all I've seen of CPGB is pathetic. So -- some member of theirs goes to a SWP organized meetings, starts trying to hand leaflets without consulting them beforehand (good practice for distributing materials at someone else's meeting that they've worked and paid to set up), trying to peel off people to some fringe, breakout meeting, and gets in a confrontation. And now it's an e-sobfest complete with demands for a public apology.

What are these guys, Sparts?

CPGB -- it always seems to be some kind of attack on SWP, publication of their internal documents (now that's something that crosses the line and really should get an apology...) etc. --- these guys are like fleas.

I wouldn't be surprised if MI-5 or some other reactionary force put them up to it, using them as disorganizers, and demoralizers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's probably the worst criticism of any organisation I've seen posted on Revleft.

How so? :confused:

To Devrim: Even the program of the ultra-left KAPD was short enough.


Funnily enough, the SPGB do make you sit an exam. I had considered joining when I was making the transition from anarchism to Marxism, but the fact that you actually had to go along to their office in London.

Apparently, they're clueless about the wonders of encrypted website technology, online multiple choice formats, and text boxes. :glare:


Die Linke is striving to replace the SPD as the social democratic big tent in Germany. Of course they have a long ass draft. Every German mainstream party has, and I honestly doubt 80% of their members ever read half of it.

I wonder why you bring up Die Linke in the first place, they are the embodiment of reactionary politics hid behind "rebel chic"-communist rhetoric.

Don't be ridiculous. The only practical way for the reformist Die Linke to replace the SPD is to get past cheap electoral campaigns and adopt an "alternative culture" model of party schools, cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc. in imitation of the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD and to inspire modern-day Lenins.

A program of ten pages or less gets more people reading. Like most long programs, this tries to combine a proper program with programmatic commentary that should be a separate book or pamphlet.

[Widerstand]

Don't be ridiculous. The only practical way for the reformist Die Linke to replace the SPD is to get past cheap electoral campaigns and adopt an "alternative culture" model of party schools, cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc. in imitation of the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD and to inspire modern-day Lenins.

Right. I'll stop.

They won't fully replace the SPD, but they already drained a lot of voters from them. The SPD is more and more pressured into forming a coalition with Die Linke if they wish to govern on (though of course, being in the opposition during a crisis always pays out). And I honestly doubt Die Linke is going to do anything like this "alternative culture" model. I just think they sort of lack the balls to do it.

[Sam_b]

Why can't you condemn it?


Like I said, I was not at Marxism this year and its probably better if I find out from people I know than go absolutely trusting on an article. I don't see this as an unreasonable line to take.

:/


We will ask the SWP to publicly condemn such behaviour and assert that the SWP is for open political debate and interaction regardless of the group comrades belong to

Why don't you post something the working class actually cares about for a change? You know, stuff like strikes, union militancy, capitalism in crisis. Are you a gossip paper of the left, or an organisation that cares to aid the development of the class? I say this in relevancy to your front page 'Reesite faction' article at the same time postal workers were taking all-out action.


Though I doubt the SWP leadership will do anything

Drawing your own conclusions to your impending article already.

[Lyev]

I don't think there are very many SWPers who would consider themselves to be Communists to be honest. I still receive some SWP literature and I don't think they're advertised themselves as Communist for some years.Actually, I spoke to my branch secretary about this (of SPEW; we don't label ourselves communist/Communist either) and it's more to do with the connotations that the word has for some people. Whilst I agree with Marx when he says "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims", we call ourselves socialists rather than communists because of it's affiliation with the eastern bloc, Stalin, repression, the purges etc., but I don't about the SWP on this. Then again, you probably think being associated with Stalin -- and people thinking his system is the kind of one you want institute -- is a good thing.

And back to the topic, surely there's obnoxious, rude people in every organisation? Rather than gossiping about it (although I think the left gossiped all the back to First International), shouldn't we be addressing the root of the problem; i.e., is this a one-off? If not, what is it, organisationally or otherwise, that leads to this? I'm not sure it's because the SWP "recruit everyone and anyone", because you can't really back this up, with any verifiable evidence, unless you're pretty high-up in the party and have access to documents pertaining who does and doesn't join. It seems we just to a point where people are just chipping in with irrelevant counter-productive comments to say "my organisation is bigger and better than yours", if you know what I mean. Also, I think reproaching an organisation for selling (too many) papers is ridiculous. Can someone explain to me why this is (a) a bad way to fund an organisation and (b) how else would you educate and agitate?

[Hit The North]

I'd go further than that. It is anybody with a left leg who will join.

Devrim

Even more disgustingly, the SWP allow people with right legs to join as well.

Is there no end to their sell-out? :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by motionless
As irrelevant as the paper selling debate may seem, it is essentially the root of the problem with the SWP, they will recruit anyone, simply because anyone can sell papers on the high street/picket line/anti-war demo.But does anyone want to sell Socialist Worker on the high street/picket line/anti-war demo? That is the question. And what should our attitude be to those who do? Tell 'em to go away and read Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia and then come back when they've digested its holy writ? Don't be silly!

In fact, it is not necessary to join the SWP in order to sell its paper. I sold it publicly for nearly 18 months before I joined the party.


Originally post by Lyev
Also, I think reproaching an organisation for selling (too many) papers is ridiculous. Can someone explain to me why this is (a) a bad way to fund an organisation and (b) how else would you educate and agitate?

(a) Quite often Socialist Worker is more of a drain on the SWP's resources.

(b) Indeed! An excellent point. Those who attack the SWP (or any other organisation) for selling papers obviously believe that the work of education and agitation can be done purely by word of mouth, or that workers will just flock to their website.

Those who don't understand the role of the paper as an educational, agitational and organisational tool, do not understand the ABC of socialist activism. That is why being a member of the SWP, and agreeing 100% with the Party's platform is not a prerequisite for allowing comrades to sell the paper.

[Zanthorus]

How so? :confused:

Your criticising them for the length of their program. That's... insane.


Actually, I spoke to my branch secretary about this (of SPEW; we don't label ourselves communist/Communist either) and it's more to do with the connotations that the word has for some people. Whilst I agree with Marx when he says "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims", we call ourselves socialists rather than communists because of it's affiliation with the eastern bloc, Stalin, repression, the purges etc.

It is kind of weird how Trots seem to shy away from openly labelling themselves communists whereas Left-Communists, whose opposition to the USSR was much more radical, continue to use the term.

[Q]

This whole thread all I've seen of CPGB is pathetic. So -- some member of theirs goes to a SWP organized meetings, starts trying to hand leaflets without consulting them beforehand (good practice for distributing materials at someone else's meeting that they've worked and paid to set up), trying to peel off people to some fringe, breakout meeting, and gets in a confrontation. And now it's an e-sobfest complete with demands for a public apology.

What are these guys, Sparts?

Incidentally I frequently came around the exact same argument when I was in the Dutch SP. "The party paid for this event, so we can't have your communist opinions here". What was that again about democracy and open and frank debate comrades? I believed it was a sectarian argument then and think it is a sectarian argument now. I'm happy that Samb and Bob haven't used this argumentation, which tells me they're aware of the problems it has.

[Serge's Fist]

Why don't you post something the working class actually cares about for a change? You know, stuff like strikes, union militancy, capitalism in crisis. Are you a gossip paper of the left, or an organisation that cares to aid the development of the class? I say this in relevancy to your front page 'Reesite faction' article at the same time postal workers were taking all-out action.


Eh, we do week in week out. But we also take up political questions openly and frankly. Allow criticism and debate in our pages and use our paper to clarify our political criticisms against the left and pose an alternative to the economist and sectarian approach on offer by large sections of the left.


This whole thread all I've seen of CPGB is pathetic. So -- some member of theirs goes to a SWP organized meetings, starts trying to hand leaflets without consulting them beforehand (good practice for distributing materials at someone else's meeting that they've worked and paid to set up), trying to peel off people to some fringe, breakout meeting, and gets in a confrontation. And now it's an e-sobfest complete with demands for a public apology.

What are these guys, Sparts?

CPGB -- it always seems to be some kind of attack on SWP, publication of their internal documents (now that's something that crosses the line and really should get an apology...) etc. --- these guys are like fleas.

I wouldn't be surprised if MI-5 or some other reactionary force put them up to it, using them as disorganizers, and demoralizers.

So if a group pays for its stall and leaflets outside of a meeting for another meeting which takes place after the main events at Marxism is wrong? Should we ask to give out leaflets at political meetings? I don't think so, as long as you do not disrupt an event or block doors or something then there should be no problem. The culture we should strive for, is one of open and honest discussion where political debate and exchanges are promoted.

It is rather insane to say that we are backed by the MI5 or reactionaries, but I suppose the internet does give people like you an opportunity to claim things without backing it up. Muppet.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your criticising them for the length of their program. That's... insane.

Q corrected me above. Also, I was only reacting to what Devrim said about 60+ pages, and believe me: given my interaction with ICC militants like Devrim, the length of their program is the least of my issues with them.

[Lyev]

It is kind of weird how Trots seem to shy away from openly labelling themselves communists whereas Left-Communists, whose opposition to the USSR was much more radical, continue to use the term.It's not really a matter of pride or theoretical purity or whatever. It's really not. After the various failed "Communist" movements of the past century, the far-left needs to reassess its objectives and strategy. At first glance, for people that don't much about leftism, "socialism" seems much more approachable than "Communism"; personally, I don't want to be mistaken for a Stalinist. The word has kind of lost a lot of meaning, it's been hollowed out by foaming-at-the-mouth rightists who think it means a one-party state, and total state control over the economy, or bollocks like that.

[Devrim]

Funnily enough, the SPGB do make you sit an exam. I had considered joining when I was making the transition from anarchism to Marxism, but the fact that you actually had to go along to their office in London.

I have heard this about the SPGB too, but when I actually asked one of them about it, he denied it was true.

Devrim

[Devrim]

..and believe me: given my interaction with ICC militants like Devrim, the length of their program is the least of my issues with them.

I have never met Jacob and he has never had an interaction with me beyond on these boards. I don't really know what he is talking about here.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your bedroom diatribe earlier in this thread speaks for itself, really.

[The Idler]

I have heard this about the SPGB too, but when I actually asked one of them about it, he denied it was true.

Devrim
Joining the Party (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/04/joining-party.html)

The politics of joining (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/01/politics-of-joining.html)

[Wanted Man]

Does anyone ever tell those guys that black text on a dark grey background is hard to read?

[ChrisK]

Whats with all the SWP bashing? I seriously don't get it. Are all of you just jealous because they can maintain a larger cadre than you? Maybe, instead of bashing them, you could learn new strategies for recruitment and agitation?

Also, the arguments I've seen against them are inane. They seem to be based on anecdotal evidence from people who already hate them and a few comrades who left them. What about those who stay in the organization? Are their anecdotes not as good because they disagree with your beliefs?

And then you move on to the greatest of all arguements: THEY SELL TOO MANY NEWSPAPERS!!!!!!!!! :scared:

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with selling a paper that have news written from a revolutionary perspective? It seems to me that people are claiming that all the SWP does is sell newspapers because thats all they see the SWP doing. But if what you see is what people are doing, then everyone else is doing what the SWP can see them doing; jackshit.

None of you are privvy to their meetings, their work with unions, their organizing or anything. They do all the stuff you do and sell a newspaper very well. Perhaps you should learn from them.

[Nosotros]

Why were the CPGB at SWP's marxism event? Its seems petit that they would go in and hand out leaflets to an another "socialist" organizations event. Though in saying that we (CWI) often have members of the IBT here in ireland distributing leaflets before and after events and giving points of view during the discussion along with the SWP and other organisations. So while I don't think the CPGB are the best but the SWP's actions are at best hypocritical.
We're talking about the SWP here, nuff said really.

[Nosotros]

Whats with all the SWP bashing? I seriously don't get it. Are all of you just jealous because they can maintain a larger cadre than you? Maybe, instead of bashing them, you could learn new strategies for recruitment and agitation?

Also, the arguments I've seen against them are inane. They seem to be based on anecdotal evidence from people who already hate them and a few comrades who left them. What about those who stay in the organization? Are their anecdotes not as good because they disagree with your beliefs?

And then you move on to the greatest of all arguements: THEY SELL TOO MANY NEWSPAPERS!!!!!!!!! :scared:

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with selling a paper that have news written from a revolutionary perspective? It seems to me that people are claiming that all the SWP does is sell newspapers because thats all they see the SWP doing. But if what you see is what people are doing, then everyone else is doing what the SWP can see them doing; jackshit.

None of you are privvy to their meetings, their work with unions, their organizing or anything. They do all the stuff you do and sell a newspaper very well. Perhaps you should learn from them.They shout down people at their meetings, slag off anyone who doesn't agree with them, grass people up to the coppers and force members to vote how they want at conferences and they make the left look like a bunch of wankers- thats the problem with the SWP.

[ChrisK]

They shout down people at their meetings, slag off anyone who doesn't agree with them, grass people up to the coppers and force members to vote how they want at conferences and they make the left look like a bunch of wankers- thats the problem with the SWP.

You seem to have ignored my point that all your arguments are based on anecdotes and that only negative anecdotes seem to be considered credible.

[bailey_187]

I have heard this about the SPGB too, but when I actually asked one of them about it, he denied it was true.

Devrim

An SPGB member i spoken to says it not a formal sitten exam but they will ask you questions etc

[bricolage]

You seem to have ignored my point that all your arguments are based on anecdotes and that only negative anecdotes seem to be considered credible.

I think there comes a point where anecdote upon anecdote turns into something more than anecdote.

[Devrim]

Joining the Party (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/04/joining-party.html)

The politics of joining (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/01/politics-of-joining.html)


From the piece you linked to (my emphasis):


Heather Ball in a piece titled Joining the Party (http://tinyurl.com/ce41nr) wrote "Every member knows that it is not easy to join the Socialist Party. It is not just a matter of filling in an application form and receiving that little red membership card through the post. I know of no other political organisation requiring potential new members to understand their aims and be capable of arguing for them. I mildly resented the twelve questions. I felt the Socialist Party should be grateful to me for wanting to join their ranks. It was rather like sitting an exam. I thought it would be a doddle. It wasn't. But goodness how it focused my mind. I do not think I made a very good job of the twelve questions but my answers must have been satisfactory enough for someone to write back and tell me I could join if I liked. There are times now when I am tempted to ask for those twelve questions again. Next time I may give a better account of myself."


An SPGB member i spoken to says it not a formal sitten exam but they will ask you questions etc

To be honest, I would expect a political organisation to discuss its politics with people who want to join.

Devrim

[Serge's Fist]

Whats with all the SWP bashing? I seriously don't get it. Are all of you just jealous because they can maintain a larger cadre than you? Maybe, instead of bashing them, you could learn new strategies for recruitment and agitation?

Also, the arguments I've seen against them are inane. They seem to be based on anecdotal evidence from people who already hate them and a few comrades who left them. What about those who stay in the organization? Are their anecdotes not as good because they disagree with your beliefs?

And then you move on to the greatest of all arguements: THEY SELL TOO MANY NEWSPAPERS!!!!!!!!! :scared:

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with selling a paper that have news written from a revolutionary perspective? It seems to me that people are claiming that all the SWP does is sell newspapers because thats all they see the SWP doing. But if what you see is what people are doing, then everyone else is doing what the SWP can see them doing; jackshit.

None of you are privvy to their meetings, their work with unions, their organizing or anything. They do all the stuff you do and sell a newspaper very well. Perhaps you should learn from them.

Maybe you have not read the thread or the article? The criticisms of the SWP are not simply anecdotal, the article posted up here is a political criticism of their intolerance to other understandings than their own. CPGB members leafletted for an event after Marxism finished that contradicted the view of the SWP on the BNP/EDL and our comrade was threatened and intimidated by stewards of an event that is described as a "festival of ideas". The Weekly Worker and no doubt many of the posters on this forum have many criticisms of the SWP in terms of their politics and approach. They are economistic, subservient to the union bureaucracy, forge cross-class alliances etc.

[bricolage]

They are economistic,.

In what way?

[Serge's Fist]

In what way?

Look at their union work, they regurgitate and follow what the trade union leadership is saying. Within the unions they do not organise as communists but behave as trade unionists. The SWP's economism is a common amongst the post-war trotskyists, believing that economic struggle itself will result in socialism consciousness.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But the "struggle for socialism" itself is an economic and not political struggle.

[Sam_b]

they regurgitate and follow what the trade union leadership is saying

Statement [requires sourcing]

[ChrisK]

I think there comes a point where anecdote upon anecdote turns into something more than anecdote.

Funny, how only negative anecdotes are looked at and never the positive ones. You are looking for a negative picture.

[ChrisK]

Maybe you have not read the thread or the article? The criticisms of the SWP are not simply anecdotal, the article posted up here is a political criticism of their intolerance to other understandings than their own. CPGB members leafletted for an event after Marxism finished that contradicted the view of the SWP on the BNP/EDL and our comrade was threatened and intimidated by stewards of an event that is described as a "festival of ideas". The Weekly Worker and no doubt many of the posters on this forum have many criticisms of the SWP in terms of their politics and approach. They are economistic, subservient to the union bureaucracy, forge cross-class alliances etc.

I did read the article and thread. Perhaps you don't know what anecdotal evidence is? The evidence that this is how the SWP as a whole acts is anecdotal. I'd argue that there are good and bad in the party and this article does highlight the problem, but people are taking this too far.

And I call bullshit on that last statement. Evidence please.

[Serge's Fist]

Sam_b, The most clear example of economism in the movement from the SWP is obviously the UAF, I remember very well how Weyman Bennett a CC member of the SWP going onto the radio against the BNP and when being asked about something as bread and butter as housing refused to answer, instead just sticking to the narrow platform permitted by UAF's awful politics. At the moment the Right to Work campaign a vehicle set up by the SWP is not about struggling for socialism or taking up wider democratic issues but regurgitating what the the trade union bureaucrats are saying just with a bit more hysterical rhetoric.

[McCroskey]

At the moment the Right to Work campaign a vehicle set up by the SWP is not about struggling for socialism or taking up wider democratic issues but regurgitating what the the trade union bureaucrats are saying just with a bit more hysterical rhetoric.

So a platform created to fight back the attack on work conditions created by the economic recession shouldn´t actually be talking about that, and should instead focus on "wider democratic issues" and telling workers to overthrow the ruling class in an armed struggle.
You know, most of workers are really worried about losing their jobs and conditions. If it´s not worth to fight for that because is not a straight road to socialism, we are not living in the real world.

[Serge's Fist]

So a platform created to fight back the attack on work conditions created by the economic recession shouldn´t actually be talking about that, and should instead focus on "wider democratic issues" and telling workers to overthrow the ruling class in an armed struggle.
You know, most of workers are really worried about losing their jobs and conditions. If it´s not worth to fight for that because is not a straight road to socialism, we are not living in the real world.

So where did I call or armed struggle? :confused:

The platform created is totally inadequate, and the Socialist Workers Party know this. The platform is centred around trade union demands within the framework of social democratic politics. To paraphrase Lenin, the economists do not always repudiate politics but consistently stray from socialist politics to trade unionism (in a political sense). Nowhere should communists refrain from engaging and seeking to lead struggles against cuts and austerity measures but we must have a long term view about arming our movement with the necessary politics to not only beat this or that attack but to bring down the system altogether.

[bricolage]

Sam_b, The most clear example of economism in the movement from the SWP is obviously the UAF, I remember very well how Weyman Bennett a CC member of the SWP going onto the radio against the BNP and when being asked about something as bread and butter as housing refused to answer, instead just sticking to the narrow platform permitted by UAF's awful politics.

I'm a bit confused here, maybe I just don't get what economism really means.
Wikipedia says; " is a term used to describe economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic) reductionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism), that is the reduction of all social facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fact) to economical dimensions"

However most of what UAF says and what you call the 'narrow platform permitted by UAF's awful politics' doesn't seem to reduce social facts to economical dimensions at all, from the 'about us' section on their website;



As a matter of the greatest urgency, we are calling for the broadest unity against the alarming rise in racism and fascism in Britain today.
Over the last decade, racism and Islamophobia in society have grown. As a result, we have seen an increase in racist violence and attacks on multiculturalism. This has culminated in the rise of far right and fascist organisations, in particular the British National Party (BNP).
The BNP

The BNP is trying to present itself as a ‘respectable’ political party. In fact it is a fascist party. As history shows, fascism stands for the total annihilation of whole communities, freedoms and democratic rights.
The BNP is seeking to attract votes on the basis of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and the vilification of refugees and asylum seekers. The BNP stands for the expulsion of Black and Asian people from this country, the destruction of the trade unions, the promotion of violence and hatred and the elimination of basic democratic rights.
The BNP now has 19 councillors across Britain. In May 2008, the party gained a seat on the London Assembly, polling 130,174 votes — 5.33%. And in the 2009 Euro elections, the BNP succeeded in gaining two MEPs, including party leader Nick Griffin.
This represented a major electoral breakthrough for the BNP, giving them access to huge resources, influence, greater respectability, and the ability to work with other far right and fascist parties in Europe.
After the 2010 elections

Successful campaigning by UAF and antifascist activists in the 2010 general and local elections dealt the BNP a heavy electoral blow. It lost more than half its council seats and was humiliated in its key target area of Barking and Dagenham, in east London, where it lost all 12 of its council seats and Griffin was pushed into third place in the Barking parliamentary seat.
But there is no room for complacency. The BNP still got a worrying 563,743 votes across the country, and increased its vote in some areas. The continuing economic crisis also gives the party opportunities to spread its racist poison.
In addition, the English Defence League – an organisation of racist thugs with links to the BNP – appears to be stepping up its activity. It has targeted Muslims and mosques, whipping up hatred, division and violence where it has been allowed to march. EDL supporters stabbed a man in the evening after the EDL demonstration in Bolton in March 2010. EDL supporters ran riot in Stoke-on-Trent earlier in the year, attacking the local Asian community and police.
EDL supporters have paraded their violence on YouTube and have been caught on camera giving Nazi salutes during their rallies and marches.
Organising together

We believe that these dangers require a strong and united response from all those dedicated to freedom and democracy. We must combine our forces and unite in a broad and common front against this common threat.Apart from the reference to trade unions this doesn't seem to be very economic at all.

Like I said though I'm still pretty confused by what people tend to mean when they talk about economism.

[bricolage]

So where did I call or armed struggle? :confused:

Doesn't the CPGB tend to critcise other groups for failing to call for armed militias or something like that?

[Q]

Doesn't the CPGB tend to critcise other groups for failing to call for armed militias or something like that?

You're confusing programmatical propaganda, in which they indeed do called for workers militia's, with agitation. That said, Mike Macnair recently in a fringe meeting at the Marxism event very clearly defended (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bash-fashi-t138139/index.html) the need of self-defence against fascists (not exactly the same, but related in that workers militia's start with the dire need of self-defence).

[Serge's Fist]

bricolage, economism is not what Wikipedia explains. "The principal feature of economism is lagging behind the spontaneous movement and a general tendency to downplay the centrality of consistent and extreme democracy. That is why in 1916 Lenin attacked those Bolsheviks who, citing decadent capitalism's inability to grant meaningful reforms, dismissed the demand for national self-determination. He branded this trend "imperialist economism" (VI Lenin CW Vol. 23, Moscow 1977, p13).

Countless other manifestations of economism could be cited - e.g., atheist economism which dismisses the need to combat religious superstition, or Trotskyite economism which equates the former USSR with some kind of a workers' state due to property forms. Be that as it may, economism remains economism.


Hence not all economists concentrate, or limit, their agitation to trade union or workerist perspectives. E.g., in banal rightist form: leave issues like Scottish and Welsh devolution to Blair, we will fight for higher pay and build opposition to the anti-trade union laws. E.g., in leftist form: forget the struggle for a republic within capitalism - "Instead of a political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution" (VI Lenin CW Vol. 23, Moscow 1977, p13)." [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=1000552]


We do call for the arming of the working class, but not to carry out an armed struggle now but as part of breaking up the capitalist state and the power of the capitalists and a key feature of the democratic republic as understood by Marx and Engels and put forward in 'The Civil War in France'.

[Q]

Another Weekly Worker article which seems to directly reply to posters here like DaringMehring, who defends a position that one should not "leech off" events organised by other organisations. The article explains (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004028) how this is a negative bourgeois reflection of society's notion of private property and Labour bureaucracy's ways to put a stop to all dissent. Is this the way socialists should operate?


Keep off our turf

James Turley critiques the SWP’s proprietorial culture

http://cpgb.org.uk/images/1004028.jpg

It has become common in daily life for capitalism to restrict people’s access to communal space - indeed, this is one of the oldest features of capitalism, which was built in Britain at least off the back of the enclosure acts, which created the proletariat through denying peasants access to the commons.

Today that process continues, albeit in the urban sphere - many leftwing activists trying to sell papers and distribute leaflets in city centres are harassed by police officers and private security guards keen to ensure activities on ‘their’ turf are restricted to approved consumerism. Those planning demonstrations have to give prior notice and the police have to agree the route. Teenagers who commit the crime of hanging around in a shopping precinct after trading hours are regularly moved on by the police. Democracy Village protesters still occupying Parliament Square face eviction by Boris Johnson and the Greater London Authority if they lose their legal appeal at the end of this week.

In bourgeois society, where legal ownership confers numerous other rights, this is perfectly unsurprising. The point of ownership is control - so a building owned or rented by a capitalist will be organised according to the needs of capital. That means uniformed guards to deal not only with genuine breaches of security, but to keep the floor free of ‘foreign bodies’ that may interfere with the money-making operations.

Unfortunately, this is also apparently the culture of the Socialist Workers Party. As reported in this paper last week (July 8 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004007)), CPGB comrade Zuri Zurowski fell foul of the same kind of mind-set at the SWP’s annual ‘festival of ideas’, Marxism. He was confronted by an abusive, screaming and threatening, officially T-shirted SWP steward while leafleting for our fringe meeting on fascism. The incident took place outside a Marxism session where Martin Smith was due to talk about the fascist English Defence League. This is our building, our comrade was told; we booked it, and if you want to leaflet, you will have to do so outside.

In fact, this behaviour compares unfavourably with bourgeois society - after all, should a Socialist Worker seller in a shopping centre be confronted by a jobsworth cop or security guard, it is more likely they will be politely asked to move on, rather than being told that they are going to get their head ripped off. Ditto club bouncers. They now have to undergo 30 hours of compulsory training, learning how to defuse potentially violent situations as well as the gentle art of restraining without injury.

For good reason - wilfully antagonising someone may escalate things, when the aim should be to calm the situation down and resolve matters peacefully. Quite apart from being an affront to democracy, the attitude of this SWP comrade represents incompetent stewarding - his threats may well have been empty (comrade Zurowski’s head remains attached to his body), but that does not mean they could not have provoked just the sort of problem that stewards are supposed to be there to prevent.

It is easy enough to draw comparisons with far-left groups past who relied on physical force in dealing with their competitors. The most infamous advocate of such activities on the British left was the Trotskyist Gerry Healy, whose organisations always tended to act like millenarian cults and treated other left groups with the visceral contempt more classically associated with Stalinist slurs against Trotsky. Indeed, as a Young Communist League member in the 1930s, Healy learned from the best on this score.

Yet this is not simply a function of the well-documented sectarianism of the far left, but a carbon copy of the culture of the labour bureaucracy. In 2005, Walter Wolfgang - a veteran leftwing and anti-war campaigner, aged 82 at the time - was physically removed from the Labour Party conference floor after shouting a single word - “Nonsense!” - during a speech by Blairite hatchet-man Jack Straw. Straw was offering up the usual mendacious defences of Britain’s mission in Iraq. Because he dared to dissent from this garbage, the world’s TV cameras were treated to the spectacle of several burly stewards dragging an octogenarian activist to the door. Upon attempting to re-enter the conference later that day, Wolfgang was briefly held by the police - under (what else?) anti-terror legislation.

It all makes perfect sense for the labour bureaucracy. Its whole basis is its function: to act as a buffer between capital and labour, exacting concessions from the bourgeoisie in return for pliancy from the working class. Its methods follow from that role. From dodgy back-room pay deals to administering the state in the interests of capitalism, the labour bureaucracy thrives when it is insulated from pressure from below. The whole history of the Labour Party is one of periodic purges of dissident members (particularly those associated with Trotskyism), and the most recent is the most prolonged and thoroughgoing on record.

Against this, communists argue for democracy in our movement. Democratic mechanisms are our main weapon against the corruption of our leaders and our goals - they do not solve everything, but, combined with a culture of criticism among the membership at large, they may be used to hold powerful individuals to account and replace them if necessary. We want Jack Straw to get heckled and exposed as a class traitor; and we want every labour bureaucrat brought under democratic control from below. For that to happen, however, we need our voices to be heard in the first place.

The SWP’s internal culture corresponds alarmingly to that of the labour bureaucracy. This is perfectly clear from the whole Marxism weekend, not just the unsavoury experience of comrade Zuri. Members of an array of different political groups attend the festival, but are greeted in the manner of leeches and parasites (rather like entryists in the Labour Party). The ‘debates’ are largely engineered through the speaker slip system, which means unacceptable criticisms are weeded out. Alternatively a member of another left group is set up to be condemned by a series of SWP loyalists parroting the prescribed line in breathless tones.

Whether the SWP can continue to get away with this kind of culture is another matter. The organisation, despite displaying its usual bravado, is reeling from a series of political blunders over several years. First came the split in Respect, which lost it most of its remaining allies among the wider left; then came endless internal ructions, centred around former leader John Rees.

Rees’s name was synonymous with the Respect venture, after all. Rees and George Galloway, then still an MP, were inseparable in public, and it was Rees who carried the can for the appalling way the SWP managed the split. He was widely reviled by the SWP rank and file. By any conceivable measure, he was unfit to serve on any central committee.

The CC behaved in the usual way, though - it attempted to lop off Rees and his closest allies as cleanly as possible. Neither side of the dispute, to be sure, had any interest in discussing the political failures behind the Respect disaster, since all were implicated. There has yet to be a serious accounting for the whole popular frontist episode.

The leadership did not get its way completely, however. Internal pre-conference bulletins published before the January 2009 conference revealed widespread discontent with the party regime, and even with aspects of its strategy - prolonged ‘united front’ work with any and all allies, typically on an issue by issue basis. As a result, a ‘democracy commission’ was set up, whose emptiness was revealed spectacularly when, not satisfied with edging him out of the CC, the SWP leadership decided to provoke a full split with comrade Rees and his allies. The 2009-10 pre-conference period - astonishingly, the only time that SWP comrades have any opportunity to openly critique the actions, views and perspectives of the leadership in any meaningful way - saw another wave of grumbles, as the SWP apparat and comrade Rees’s Left Platform were clearly heading for a split.

The split produced, around the exiled minority, a media-centric left operation in the form of Counterfire. But the problems have continued. The SWP’s economic ‘united front’ - Right to Work - had no sooner held a major conference than it destroyed its own reputation, when a hundred SWP/RTW activists invaded the Acas talks over the BA cabin crew dispute in an utterly childish and anarchistic fashion (not many anarchists would be so silly, in truth).

Now, the Doncaster branch - always, according to their split document, closer to Rees - have resigned en masse. They cite the directionless character of the SWP’s union work, in particular their failure to hold the SWP’s union officials to account. No sooner is a debate stitched up than a new row erupts - and increasingly, these rows end in splits.

Demographically speaking, the SWP has historically dealt with this problem by roping in ‘new layers’ of naive youngsters, who - efficiently managed by a full-timer - can be relied upon for loyalty for a few years at least. But SWP leaders are caught in a genuine bind. They treat the organisation as their personal property; the problem is that it is more or less an accurate assessment. By maintaining bureaucratic organisational norms and opportunist political priorities, the leadership comes into possession of the party structures. It regulates communication between fractions and branches. It is their shop, and if you don’t like it, you can leave and try another.

The SWP’s project, however, remains a revolutionary one in the broadest terms - they wish, one way or another, to place the working class in charge of the world and remake it into a communist society. Moreover, there is the group’s founding myth - only by rejecting Trotsky’s theory of degenerated and deformed workers’ states (ie, that the socialised property of the Stalinist regimes was itself a stamp of working class rule, however corrupted by the bureaucratic ruling caste) could founder-guru Tony Cliff produce a socialism that was genuinely a ‘socialism from below’, of mass action and democracy.

My point is not to argue with Cliff’s conclusions on all this (many are, of course, arguable), but simply to point out that there is a contradiction inherent in any organisation that argues for socialism ‘from below’, through one or another form of workers’ democracy, but uses the technical-organisational norms of the labour bureaucracy to pursue this project. Either the bureaucratic machine, and the leadership’s monopoly over information, must be destroyed; or the political errors will simply multiply. Treating other left voices as comrades in a common struggle, rather than dangerous parasites, and engaging in the battle of ideas without threatening to turn it into a literal bloodbath - that would be a good start.

[email protected]

[Devrim]

This whole thread all I've seen of CPGB is pathetic. So -- some member of theirs goes to a SWP organized meetings, starts trying to hand leaflets without consulting them beforehand (good practice for distributing materials at someone else's meeting that they've worked and paid to set up), trying to peel off people to some fringe, breakout meeting, and gets in a confrontation. And now it's an e-sobfest complete with demands for a public apology.

What are these guys, Sparts?

I may have misunderstood this completely, and if I am wrong, I would appreciate being corrected, but as I understand it from this thread so far, the CPGB rented a stall off the SWP. Surely the SWP shouldn't then be surprised if they, having rented a stall, then use it to distrubute their propoganda.

Devrim

[scarletghoul]

Really this is a crystalisation of the SWP's petit-bourgeois mentality. How can anyone miss it ?

It's tragic that so many potential revolutionaries get sucked into this organisation :(

[Lyev]

Really this is a crystalisation of the SWP's petit-bourgeois mentality. How can anyone miss it ?

It's tragic that so many potential revolutionaries get sucked into this organisation :(What on earth is a "petit-bourgeois mentality"? Or do you just like to make phrases up? Please elaborate on why you think the SWP are petit-bourgeois.

[allybaba]

Really this is a crystalisation of the SWP's petit-bourgeois mentality. How can anyone miss it ?

It's tragic that so many potential revolutionaries get sucked into this organisation :(

Agreed.

[Q]

Agreed.

Please refrain from one-word posts as they're considered spam.

[Q]

What on earth is a "petit-bourgeois mentality"? Or do you just like to make phrases up? Please elaborate on why you think the SWP are petit-bourgeois.

Maybe he had a reflex after reading the word "bourgeois" in the article?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I can't begin to describe how depressing it is that this is the most discussed thread in politics at the moment...

[durhamleft]

UK SWP often seem their own worst enemy and are far too authoritarian for my liking. I prefer SP.

[nuisance]

I can't begin to describe how depressing it is that this is the most discussed thread in politics at the moment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFs7K_R2di0&feature=related

[Q]

I can't begin to describe how depressing it is that this is the most discussed thread in politics at the moment...

Really? I've bumped this thread several times now. If only it was a bit more popular!

[Nosotros]

You seem to have ignored my point that all your arguments are based on anecdotes and that only negative anecdotes seem to be considered credible.Thats certainly not the case because I have heard some very strange people not in or affiliated to SWP describe some aspects of the party and their activities in a positive light. People unfortunetly will get sentimental regarding an organisation just because they used to be a part of it and just because it is a socialist organisation, just because it is a slight improvement on capitalist ideology. This does not ,however, mean that this party and those like it are driving the left to victory. Doing stalls outside mosques and the like is only going to recruit people to the EDL and standing around listening to music and speeches while they march through town is only going to encourage them.