Opinions on the SWP (UK)

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

I've got a few friends in the SWP and as i am unaffiliated to any party they have asked me to join quite a few times, but i've heard a lot of people among the left having issues with them for one reason or another. I am aware that they are a socialist party and i am an anarcho-communist but they have said it is an open party more concerned with organising a revolution rather than sectarianism that has some anarchist members as well as members from all strands of the revolutionary left, i'd like to how far this is true. Yes i have heard all the jokes about newspapers and made a few of my own but behind all that are they essentially good? I'd like to hear experiences from any ex or current members.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Why not join AFED or something if you're an anarcho-communist?

[Queercommie Girl]

The SWP is ok but one problem is that in their zeal to combat Islamophobia (which is fair enough and a correct line), they have become somewhat "Islamophilic" and too pro-Islam.

Personally I don't agree with their state-capitalist theory, but they do produce some good books often.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

Afed don't seem to actually organise much, at least not anything i've seen, whereas SWP brought the protests to my area and have raised class consciousness quite a lot in the people that have gone to these protests.

[human strike]

I know some good guys in the SWP, even one who describes himself as an anarchist, but the party has very serious problems that I could never get over.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

I know some good guys in the SWP, even one who describes himself as an anarchist, but the party has very serious problems that I could never get over.

Care to elaborate?

[Rooster]

The SWP is probably the most organised party in the UK. I've never seen the CPGB organise or protest as much, or any other party to be honest. Not in recent memory. You can join and if you don't like then just quit. The ones up here meet up a lot in pubs and stuff and it's usually a good vibe. Plus, you might be able to meet Mark Steel.

[scarletghoul]

more concerned with organising a revolution rather than sectarianism
:lol:

Anyway there are many problems with them. Their general approach as you seem to know is just "fucking recruit loads of students" and "sell more papers". I have never heard of them actually organising the people.. Also they will enter into alliances with other groups on the condition that they can control them (see Solidarity), and if they cant then they abandon it (RESPECT). Their Cliffite attitude to socialism (that is, talk about it but distance themselves from any actually socialist state by calling it capitalist) is problematic. As far as I know the party is not run at all democratically, students are just used for papers or recruiting moar students.. but really my main problem is that the Party just focusses on its own expansion rather than organising the people for revolution

[Sam_b]

Plus, you might be able to meet Mark Steel.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, especially my own organisation, but Mark left us in 2007/08 or so.

[bricolage]

I'm not even gonna get into this because these threads are normally just a mess of "they only sell papers...", "but they are the biggest party!", "TROTSKYITE SCUM!" and other such nonsense.

I would say though that if you consider yourself an anarchist I don't see how you would see joining the SWP as a good path to follow. I'd also imagine SWP members here wouldn't really see the point in getting anarchist to join.

[Rooster]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, especially my own organisation, but Mark left us in 2007/08 or so.

D:

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Afed don't seem to actually organise much, at least not anything i've seen, whereas SWP brought the protests to my area and have raised class consciousness quite a lot in the people that have gone to these protests.
That's fair enough, but as an anarcho-communist, you could be trying to organize in your area with (or as) an organization that shares your principles.

Also, even if you were to do this, or act alone, there is no harm in working with the SWP on campaigns etc on a non-sectarian basis.

I know a few SWP people, and I've found them all fairly decent. It seems that the SWP get a lot of stick for being sectarian, but I've worked with them without trouble before even though I don't agree with them on many things.

In short, there's no obligation to join a party or organization, even if they are the only active one in your region. You should only join an organization that you can identify with on a principled basis.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

:lol:

Anyway there are many problems with them. Their general approach as you seem to know is just "fucking recruit loads of students" and "sell more papers". I have never heard of them actually organising the people.. Also they will enter into alliances with other groups on the condition that they can control them (see Solidarity), and if they cant then they abandon it (RESPECT). Their Cliffite attitude to socialism (that is, talk about it but distance themselves from any actually socialist state by calling it capitalist) is problematic. As far as I know the party is not run at all democratically, students are just used for papers or recruiting moar students.. but really my main problem is that the Party just focusses on its own expansion rather than organising the people for revolution
To be honest, you will find difficulty finding any left-wing party in the country that doesn't seem to only care about recruiting people and selling papers, and using fronts as a means for recruiting. Obviously they are involved in other activity, but you get what I mean.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I've got a few friends in the SWP and as i am unaffiliated to any party they have asked me to join quite a few times, but i've heard a lot of people among the left having issues with them for one reason or another. I am aware that they are a socialist party and i am an anarcho-communist but they have said it is an open party more concerned with organising a revolution rather than sectarianism that has some anarchist members as well as members from all strands of the revolutionary left, i'd like to how far this is true. Yes i have heard all the jokes about newspapers and made a few of my own but behind all that are they essentially good? I'd like to hear experiences from any ex or current members.
Regardless of whether or not they are an open party, do you even agree with Leninist revolutionary theory and practice? As an anarchist you probably shouldn't, and the SWP claims to be a Leninist party, so while it may well be true that some SWP members are more interested in organising a revolution than engaging in sectarianism, is their revolution even one you would want to be organising? If it isn't then the answer is simple: Just say no. Leninism and anarchism are two completely different things, it is not at all sectarian for an anarchist to not want to be involved with Leninists or any kind of "authoritarian" Communists, whether they are of the Trotskyite or the Marxist-Leninist variety. Have you read Lenin's thoughts on anarchism? Or Stalin's? Or Trotsky's?

On the other side of things, if they SWP are actually a Leninist party they won't let you join in the first place. So yeah....

[Quail]

Afed don't seem to actually organise much, at least not anything i've seen, whereas SWP brought the protests to my area and have raised class consciousness quite a lot in the people that have gone to these protests.
I'm not sure whereabouts in England you're from, but there are quite a few active AFed groups. Perhaps you should look into local anarchist groups more?

I don't really understand why you'd want to join the SWP as an anarcho-communist because I can imagine that you'd end up frustrated and infuriated by them. In Sheffield, I have been very frustrated with the SWP and the way they've acted recently in the actions against education cuts. The SWP may be the most visible organisation, but they're not big on direct action. So far, it seems they're big on announcing to the media and informing the police through insecure lists of any plans for action, so that they can get to the scene and back out.

Also, you shouldn't feel that you have to be aligned to an organisation. If you can't find a local group that shares your political views, I'd advise you not to join. Being unaligned doesn't stop you from participating in demos and other actions.

[learningaboutheleft123]

join the BNP.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

I'm not sure whereabouts in England you're from, but there are quite a few active AFed groups. Perhaps you should look into local anarchist groups more?

I don't really understand why you'd want to join the SWP as an anarcho-communist because I can imagine that you'd end up frustrated and infuriated by them. In Sheffield, I have been very frustrated with the SWP and the way they've acted recently in the actions against education cuts. The SWP may be the most visible organisation, but they're not big on direct action. So far, it seems they're big on announcing to the media and informing the police through insecure lists of any plans for action, so that they can get to the scene and back out.

Also, you shouldn't feel that you have to be aligned to an organisation. If you can't find a local group that shares your political views, I'd advise you not to join. Being unaligned doesn't stop you from participating in demos and other actions.

I think that's probably what i'll do, i just thought i should honestly look into it since they asked me. Strangely enough in my area (west midlands) the SWP are the main people if not the only people who are doing any kind of direct action. I have a private and completely unsubstantiated theory that SWP have gone so recruitment happy that there are so many people of divergent beliefs in there that most of the SWP itself doesn't know what it is supposed to be or thinks it is something else which has actually changed what the SWP is, consequently there SWP in one place is a completely different party to the SWP elsewhere.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I never see the SWP out in Birmingham or Coventry anymore, CWI have a much larger presence. I'd even argue that the CPB are more active than the SWP around these parts. The only place I ever see the SWP is on the uni campus.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

I never see the SWP out in Birmingham or Coventry anymore, CWI have a much larger presence. I'd even argue that the CPB are more active than the SWP around these parts. The only place I ever see the SWP is on the uni campus.

SWP are in Birmingham town centre all the time, shit they're there tommorow.

[The Idler]

"Open party" is fairly meaningless I'm afraid, pretty much all left parties in the UK are "open parties" insofar as you can publicly join them. The only parties that could be said to be anything other than open are secret ones like Socialist Action and Communist League of Great Britain. The Socialist Party of Great Britain requires members to pass an admission test.

"Members from all strands of the revolutionary left" is either fairly unremarkable among the left or an indictment of party democracy, membership political-awareness or both.
Unremarkable in the sense that ordinary members of any party can think freely and speak relatively freely.
It could be an indictment to suggest members of all strands of the revolutionary left can decide SWP policy (anarchists agreeing to unite with Labour for example). Since the SWP do select some policies and reject others, it would suggest these other "strands" aren't very active, at best.

As for "more concerned with a revolution than sectarianism" you can ask many expelled and departed members and factions of the SWP about this. Most recently in 2010, Left Platform, John Rees, Lindsey German and whole branches like Doncaster (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/07/doncaster-swp-why-we-resigned.html). The split that has become the biggest organisation is the Alliance for Workers' Liberty (http://www.workersliberty.org/swp).

Everyone gets asked to join the SWP but if you're new to the left you really ought to go to meetings of at least 3-4 different groups on the left before you commit to one. There is a quiz here;
UK Far-Left Political Parties (http://hunch.com/uk-far-left-political-parties/)

[electro_fan]

hi ya,
it seems like you need to work your ideas out a bit more before joining any organisation, including to read more about anarchism etc and what you think about it.

you should not rush into joining something, espeically not something like the SWP, and don't forget that being in a party is very demanding, you will be expected to do some stuff for the party such as say going to a meeting or seling some papers, most weeks and often more than one day a week. if you can handle this then good, but you might also find that the SWP is more "pressurised" than most, it has this reputation. I also know quite a few people who say that they were put off the sort of "leninists" left permanently by the SWP. Remember that if you are an anarchist the SWP are not going to agree with your ideas lol.

I would go to meetings of different groups rather than take people's word for it, i would also not necessarily pay the slightest bit of attention to what people say on here, including me, as people talk utter bollocks on the internet.

also being open and having lots of different views is not necessarily a good tihng, like it is not a good idea to be like a cult, and expell people for having "the wrong" view on a certain topic, like was China a deformed workers state or something, or for asking questions (Im not saying the swp necessarily does this, but some smaller parties do), but at the same time it is not good to not discuss the views of the organisation with people, and clarify certain matters etc. because imo a political party, even if the members of it don't agree on every detail, should agree with each other in gneeral terms over what they want to see, and it is quite obvious that the swp who consider themselves trots and anarchists who consider that they are against parties and the state, would see the future differently.

also you need to read up on tehe swp's view of certain topics, which may be completely different from your own, its good to do this and read lots of points of views anyway to challenge your ideas on things, but especially if you are thinking of joining them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Plus, you might be able to meet Mark Steel.I met him - why does he talk so funny?

But if you want to meet him, you'd better hurry because the ISO is going to convince him to move to the states and then counter-recruit him:D. It's all part of my master plan to build a radical cadre of professional comedians in the US.

Take that Callinicos!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I thought the ISO and the IST had made up!:)

[Sam_b]

but they're not big on direct action

This is straight-up untrue.


The split that has become the biggest organisation is the Alliance for Workers' Liberty (http://www.workersliberty.org/swp).

Also untrue. The AWL, or what now is the AWL, split from the IS; which although the SWP is the continuation of such tradition; is different strategically, structurally and tactically.

[Q]

Also untrue. The AWL, or what now is the AWL, split from the IS; which although the SWP is the continuation of such tradition; is different strategically, structurally and tactically.

Could you expand on that? I was under the impression that the renaming from International Socialists to SWP was mostly just that, a new name.

[Crux]

There is a quiz here;
UK Far-Left Political Parties (http://hunch.com/uk-far-left-political-parties/)
That quiz made no sense to me what so ever.

[MarxSchmarx]

join the BNP.

This is a verbal warning. Please refrain from such posts - if you have nothing constructive to say, don't say it. If you think the SWP is as bad as the BNP, the least you can do is articulate why you would think such a thing.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That quiz made no sense to me what so ever.

Truth son. I answered everything honestly and ended up getting SPGB, AFed and CPGB.

[RedTrackWorker]

I've got a few friends in the SWP and as i am unaffiliated to any party they have asked me to join quite a few times, but i've heard a lot of people among the left having issues with them for one reason or another. I am aware that they are a socialist party and i am an anarcho-communist but they have said it is an open party more concerned with organising a revolution rather than sectarianism that has some anarchist members as well as members from all strands of the revolutionary left, i'd like to how far this is true. Yes i have heard all the jokes about newspapers and made a few of my own but behind all that are they essentially good? I'd like to hear experiences from any ex or current members.

Check out:
http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/subjectindex.html#ist
Has letters from former members of IST (not British section in particular though).

For a very short recent piece, see http://lrp-cofi.org/letters/britain061010.html.
For a major article taking up the British SWP in 1996, see http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/LabourPR52.html.
On the split between the American section (ISO) and the IST, see http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/ISOSWPPR61.html.

[human strike]

I met him - why does he talk so funny?

Because he's a stand-up comic?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, here come the (usual) lies about the SWP:

Repy to: RedTrackWorher.

The accuracy of the articles and letters published at the links you posted can be judged from this blatant lie:


Importantly, the SWP opposes raising class-wide political demands like a sliding scale of hours to provide jobs for all -- demands that can link the partial demands of the workers today to the need for centralized political solutions to their whole class's needs. Instead, until the working class is ready for revolution, the SWP will support Labour as long as possible. It combines militant Labourism with a separate organization to corral those who understand that one day workers will have to go beyond Labourism.

Bold added.

http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/LabourPR52.html

The author of this diatribe offers no proof of this allegation and no wonder, it's a lie. The SWP does not and has never 'supported' the Labour Party.

The rest of the article is no less sectarian, showing its author is a stranger to the truth.

[LiberationFrequency]

I swear there's about 10 threads on the SWP a week. As has already been said, why not join AFED if you're an anarcho-communist?

[Aeval]

This is straight-up untrue.



It is true about the SWP in Sheffield - maybe in other places they are more into it but here they tend to argue against it in favour of marching about. I have been present for and involved in several of these arguments so don't try and say it's not the case. And as Kayl pointed out, they have also repeatedly told the media about planned actions (including ones planned by other people) and shouted it out through megaphones on the way to the action and in full earshot of the police, rendering it impossible for anyone to do anything effective as the police are already there and waiting.

To the OP: don't feel the need to join an organisation, I didn't for ages, like literally years. You can still work with the groups on things independently and then once you get to know how the different groups work you can find one you feel comfortable about joining. People in groups tend to be on their best behaviour when you first get to know them so it's important to take you time with it, let people's true colours shine through :lol:

[The Idler]

Truth son. I answered everything honestly and ended up getting SPGB, AFed and CPGB.
Then based on the answers you gave you should join one of those.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Aeval:


It is true about the SWP in Sheffield - maybe in other places they are more into it but here they tend to argue against it in favour of marching about.

Well, of course, it depends on local conditions. In some places, direct action, where there is no movement from below, is little other than a stunt (slightly better than those pulled off by, say, RAAN). In others, like the recent student domos, it makes sense.


And as Kayl pointed out, they have also repeatedly told the media about planned actions (including ones planned by other people) and shouted it out through megaphones on the way to the action and in full earshot of the police, rendering it impossible for anyone to do anything effective as the police are already there and waiting.

This is otherwise known as 'stewarding'.

[Sam_b]

Could you expand on that? I was under the impression that the renaming from International Socialists to SWP was mostly just that, a new name.

Sure. I think there were a number of important tactical and strategic differences. The first, which I regard as different from our tactics today was the willingness to organise within Labour's Young Socialists in the early days (1862-onwards). This tactic would last roughly until 1967, the times when we got our footings in the Trade Union moveme and regarded thisas the way forward in organising.

Another faction which I think you'll appreciate as different is the organisation of some distinct factions. Groups such as Worker's Fight joined the IS, setting up what they would call the Trotskyist Tendency, before moving away to form what is now the AWL. Similar is the experience which led to the formation of the Revolutionary Communist Group. The debate and questions around factions would continue right up until 1977. The majority of what are often referred to as 'SWP Splits' actually came around while we were still the International Socialists.

The 1960s was a great time of learning for our tendency and one where we started to gear a lot more towards an industrial strategy, and to recognise the struggle which would come about from a Labour government. Its unfortunate that at the time of creating the SWP in 1977 some good socialists within us, most notably Peter Sedgwick, would disagree with our new direction and resign: but this perhaps highlights how the organisation had changed and expanded.

These links could be useful:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1971/xx/introis.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/2000/wtw/index.htm

[scarletghoul]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, especially my own organisation, but Mark left us in 2007/08 or so.
I guess thats one joke he grew tired of.

[scarletghoul]

To be honest, you will find difficulty finding any left-wing party in the country that doesn't seem to only care about recruiting people and selling papers, and using fronts as a means for recruiting. Obviously they are involved in other activity, but you get what I mean.
Theres a few groups who arnt like that but I know what you mean.. imho no organisation has a good approach (that is, organising directly among the masses). Hopefully I can change that within a few years.

Still, the SWP exemplifies the problems of the british left. The only decent left wing parties fighting the british state are in the north of Ireland, which makes me almost tempted to become a unionist in the hope that the english left can leech off them

[Hit The North]

Theres a few groups who arnt like that but I know what you mean.. imho no organisation has a good approach (that is, organising directly among the masses). Hopefully I can change that within a few years.


I like your ambition!


Still, the SWP exemplifies the problems of the british left. The only decent left wing parties fighting the british state are in the north of Ireland, which makes me almost tempted to become a unionist in the hope that the english left can leech off them


WTF:confused: Are you suggesting that ulster unionist parties are fighting the British state?

[scarletghoul]

I like your ambition!



WTF:confused: Are you suggesting that ulster unionist parties are fighting the British state?
no i just mean that as long as there's 6 counties under british occupation there will be some notable far left activity going on. It was a joke of course tho, i fully support the independence of ireland

[Quail]

Well, of course, it depends on local conditions. In some places, direct action, where there is no movement from below, is little other than a stunt (slightly better than those pulled off by, say, RAAN). In others, like the recent student domos, it makes sense.
There is a movement from below. Lots of school-age young people have been out demonstrating with no influence from left wing organisations. This is a good time for direct action.


And as Kayl pointed out, they have also repeatedly told the media about planned actions (including ones planned by other people) and shouted it out through megaphones on the way to the action and in full earshot of the police, rendering it impossible for anyone to do anything effective as the police are already there and waiting.


This is otherwise known as 'stewarding'.
Stewarding? It totally fucks our chances of doing anything effective, and we end up having yet another stupid rally where people stand around shouting for a bit, then congratulate themselves for being so radical, and it achieves nothing.

[Sam_b]

It is true about the SWP in Sheffield - maybe in other places they are more into it but here they tend to argue against it in favour of marching about. I have been present for and involved in several of these arguments so don't try and say it's not the case. And as Kayl pointed out, they have also repeatedly told the media about planned actions (including ones planned by other people) and shouted it out through megaphones on the way to the action and in full earshot of the police, rendering it impossible for anyone to do anything effective as the police are already there and waiting.

Except that Sheffield SWP students participated in the wave of occupations in December and an occupation at Topshop. Even if you are trying to argue that the 'SWP aren't big on direct action' in a regional sense you are wrong.


Stewarding? It totally fucks our chances of doing anything effective, and we end up having yet another stupid rally where people stand around shouting for a bit, then congratulate themselves for being so radical, and it achieves nothing.

This might be one of the most simplistic arguments against stewarding i've heard for a while. If this is what happens it obviously means you've been on most of them to develop a pattern - which begs the question of why you are there in the first place. If it achieves nothing it's obviously allowed for a mobilisation of the class, otherwise you wouldn't be there.

[Quail]

This might be one of the most simplistic arguments against stewarding i've heard for a while. If this is what happens it obviously means you've been on most of them to develop a pattern - which begs the question of why you are there in the first place. If it achieves nothing it's obviously allowed for a mobilisation of the class, otherwise you wouldn't be there.
This isn't an argument against "stewarding." I'm saying that the SWP in Sheffield seem to have done their utmost to sabotage most actions by tipping off the police.

A couple of examples. The first meeting where we could have decided to occupy had a lot of security and some police presence because the SWP told the media that they were going to occupy, so nothing could happen there. There was a demo outside Clegg's office, which the SWP announced on a mailing list that they knew wasn't secure, so when we arrived there we were greeted by about 3 times as many police as there were protesters, which was just fucking ridiculous.

If they're so in favour of direct action, they wouldn't be doing things like that. Unless they are in favour of direct action, but they're just hilariously inept.

[Rooster]

This isn't an argument against "stewarding." I'm saying that the SWP in Sheffield seem to have done their utmost to sabotage most actions by tipping off the police.

A couple of examples. The first meeting where we could have decided to occupy had a lot of security and some police presence because the SWP told the media that they were going to occupy, so nothing could happen there. There was a demo outside Clegg's office, which the SWP announced on a mailing list that they knew wasn't secure, so when we arrived there we were greeted by about 3 times as many police as there were protesters, which was just fucking ridiculous.

If they're so in favour of direct action, they wouldn't be doing things like that. Unless they are in favour of direct action, but they're just hilariously inept.

Are you saying that the SWP tipped off the media or the police?

[Aeval]

This is otherwise known as 'stewarding'.

Don't patronise me - they weren't the stewards, we didn't have stewards because it was unnecessary. It was a small group of people, maybe like 30 or 40, information could be passed quickly through the group. The guy on the megaphone wasn't delegated to do that job, he just grabbed hold of the megaphone. It wasn't an SWP thing, there were loads of different groups and independents there, noone else was trying to "steward" (read: balls up) what people were doing.


Except that Sheffield SWP students participated in the wave of occupations in December and an occupation at Topshop. Even if you are trying to argue that the 'SWP aren't big on direct action' in a regional sense you are wrong.


An occupation of TopShop? I was there mate, we stood outside it and people could still get in and out. We'd previously been to Vodaphone which had been decided off the cuff and had almost gotten in, then we decided to go to TopShop. There was less than 50 people, this could have been spread through the group very easily, in fact it wasn't the megaphone guy who first thought of it, but no, that bellend with the megaphone repeatedly shouted "ok guys! let's go and try to occupy TopShop!" despite loads of people yelling at him to shut up and stop announcing everything, so all the cops just strolled over with us. It was one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen.

I know you must get all the exciting gossip through your internal mailings or something, but I have actually sat there in a room (at the occupation in fact) whilst people were putting forward ideas for direct action and it was SWP members who were dismissing them and banging on about how we should just march back down to Clegg's office again.


Unless they are in favour of direct action, but they're just hilariously inept.

I think it's this. Which is fine - you can't know how to do everything, we all have to learn from each other, but if other people are there who have more experience and they tell you that your mailing list isn't secure, or that you shouldn't announce things to the media before you do it because, surprise surprise, the police will turn up expecting you, then you should listen and not think that you some how know more than everyone else. It's ludicrous.

[Sam_b]

despite loads of people yelling at him to shut up and stop announcing everything,

Wow, how completely isolationist, especially on a mobilisation. But I guess most have us have seen the failings of some political groups and their hush-hush actions where only the chosen ones get involved. There is nothing wrong with announcing direct action by taking strength of numbers into account - otherwise direct action in itself is pointless. A case example of this is the action in Glasgow in early December where a mobilisation was esentially able to do what it wanted, busting into a Vodaphone and preventing no less than five police kettles. Why would you ever want to attempt direct action without a solid group of people? I sense that this might just be an excuse for the broader arguments around organisation on this event in Sheffield; which obviously I wasn't there for. It's unfortunate because our organisation has done these Topshop blockades before with a decent success rate.

Regardless, nothing of which has been argued demonstates an unwillingness by the SWP to engage in direct action, which was the point in the first place. Rather, you have disagreements on the question of tactics here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Aeval:


Don't patronise me

Eh?


they weren't the stewards, we didn't have stewards because it was unnecessary. It was a small group of people, maybe like 30 or 40, information could be passed quickly through the group. The guy on the megaphone wasn't delegated to do that job, he just grabbed hold of the megaphone. It wasn't an SWP thing, there were loads of different groups and independents there, noone else was trying to "steward" (read: balls up) what people were doing.

Then there does not seem to anything determinate that "people were doing", does there? An activity crying out for some direction, it seems.:)

And, what's so wrong with trying to affect a group of individuals along a certain course of action? Especially if there does not seem to be anything determinate that "people were doing"?

[TheGeekySocialist]

I reccently joined the party, I share many of there political views and the only other "left wing" party on campus is Labour who are useless once you go beyond the grass roots members. several of the friends ive made are also SWP members, so I guess its convient as much as anything for me to join, we have a meeting on monday about social media actually which should be good.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Wow, how completely isolationist, especially on a mobilisation. But I guess most have us have seen the failings of some political groups and their hush-hush actions where only the chosen ones get involved. There is nothing wrong with announcing direct action by taking strength of numbers into account - otherwise direct action in itself is pointless. A case example of this is the action in Glasgow in early December where a mobilisation was esentially able to do what it wanted, busting into a Vodaphone and preventing no less than five police kettles. Why would you ever want to attempt direct action without a solid group of people? I sense that this might just be an excuse for the broader arguments around organisation on this event in Sheffield; which obviously I wasn't there for. It's unfortunate because our organisation has done these Topshop blockades before with a decent success rate.

Regardless, nothing of which has been argued demonstates an unwillingness by the SWP to engage in direct action, which was the point in the first place. Rather, you have disagreements on the question of tactics here.

Direct Action =/= standing outside various buildings

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CWDFA:


Direct Action =/= standing outside various buildings

And then occupying them, as the students have...

[Spawn of Stalin]

Then based on the answers you gave you should join one of those.

But I disagree with virtually all of their positions.:confused:

[Aeval]

Wow, how completely isolationist, especially on a mobilisation. But I guess most have us have seen the failings of some political groups and their hush-hush actions where only the chosen ones get involved. There is nothing wrong with announcing direct action by taking strength of numbers into account - otherwise direct action in itself is pointless. A case example of this is the action in Glasgow in early December where a mobilisation was esentially able to do what it wanted, busting into a Vodaphone and preventing no less than five police kettles. Why would you ever want to attempt direct action without a solid group of people? I sense that this might just be an excuse for the broader arguments around organisation on this event in Sheffield; which obviously I wasn't there for. It's unfortunate because our organisation has done these Topshop blockades before with a decent success rate.

I agree, direct action in massive numbers is better, but you can't always get the numbers. You have to pitch it at the level that you can achieve with the people and resources you've got at hand, which is why people need to listen to each other. There definitely needs to be a discussion about how actions are organised, people need to accept that they don't always know best rather than just casting themselves in the lead role. Other people who are use to doing smaller direct actions have invaluable knowledge on the subject, and an action can still work with less people, it just has to be approached differently. That's awesome that people in Glasgow managed that, however given the numbers we had and the fact that the TopShop here is weirdly design with an escalator to get into it, it meant that as soon as one cop knew what was going on he just had to stroll across, so it did need to be a bit more hush hush. This isn't being elitist because everyone on the small demonstration which turned into the attempted occupation had met up before and discussed doing it.


Regardless, nothing of which has been argued demonstates an unwillingness by the SWP to engage in direct action, which was the point in the first place. Rather, you have disagreements on the question of tactics here.

I just said in my last post that they were arguing against doing direct action and just wanted to march to Clegg's office for the nth time. Marching to an office =/= direct action, as Comrade Wolfie said, neither does standing outside a building.

I've already said I don't know how they are in other places, this is how they are in Sheffield. Which is what my point to the OP was - you need to take your time with a group. Even if you agree with them on paper it could well be that you don't like the way they actually work, and there's nothing stopping you join in with things independently in the mean time.




Eh?


This is otherwise known as 'stewarding'.

This. As if I didn't know what a stewarding was. And as I've already said, they weren't stewarding.


Then there does not seem to anything determinate that "people were doing", does there? An activity crying out for some direction, it seems.:)

And, what's so wrong with trying to affect a group of individuals along a certain course of action? Especially if there does not seem to be anything determinate that "people were doing"?

People were doing something, namely, they were blockading Vodaphone, which they'd managed to do all by themselves without someone yelling at them to do it, and then they were about to move on the TopShop. Again, this idea was already out there and was being passed around the group. Had there been a larger amount of people there then announcing it would have made sense as some people might not know what's going on. As I have already said, several times now, that was not the case.

The people there were not lost little lambs who were just wandering around not knowing what to do until some great person with a megaphone happened to suggest going to TopShop. I don't really understand why you keep insinuating that people wouldn't do anything had he not shouted it - the only people who wouldn't have known what was going on in that case would have been the police and security guards, which is surely a positive thing :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Aeval:


As if I didn't know what a stewarding was. And as I've already said, they weren't stewarding.

Even so, I could not understand why you posted this:


Don't patronise me

You:


People were doing something, namely, they were blockading Vodaphone, which they'd managed to do all by themselves without someone yelling at them to do it, and then they were about to move on the TopShop. Again, this idea was already out there and was being passed around the group. Had there been a larger amount of people there then announcing it would have made sense as some people might not know what's going on. As I have already said, several times now, that was not the case.

The people there were not lost little lambs who were just wandering around not knowing what to do until some great person with a megaphone happened to suggest going to TopShop. I don't really understand why you keep insinuating that people wouldn't do anything had he not shouted it - the only people who wouldn't have known what was going on in that case would have been the police and security guards, which is surely a positive thing

In other words, you are complaining that the individaul with the megaphone reminded the crowd what they were to do next.

This is called 'nit-picking'-- and I am patronising you now.

[Might as well do so if I am being accused of it...]

[Wanted Man]

There is a quiz here;
UK Far-Left Political Parties (http://hunch.com/uk-far-left-political-parties/)

Wow, what utter shite.

[Das war einmal]

From what I've heard their politics and methods are exactly the same of the Dutch International Socialist (they're the sister organization, so it makes sense). So I just give my opinion about them instead.

I think they are good in organizing things but they have a bit of a smug attitude, but thats probably also the case because they have a lot of students and to be fair, students tend to be a bit smug in general.

Furthermore, if I'm right, they are required to sell newspapers, thats obligatory from what I've heard. I don't mind much but I wouldn't do it myself.

Other organizations are often annoyed because they tend to pull actions and demonstrations towards themselves. Example: there was a small student protest a couple of weeks ago and then they plant their bookstand, while nobody is interested.

And I think the concept of 'state capitalism' is to be laughed at, but thats an ideological difference.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R:


And I think the concept of 'state capitalism' is to be laughed at, but thats an ideological difference.

As indeed are these comments of yours.

[Sam_b]

I agree, direct action in massive numbers is better, but you can't always get the numbers. You have to pitch it at the level that you can achieve with the people and resources you've got at hand, which is why people need to listen to each other. There definitely needs to be a discussion about how actions are organised, people need to accept that they don't always know best rather than just casting themselves in the lead role. Other people who are use to doing smaller direct actions have invaluable knowledge on the subject, and an action can still work with less people, it just has to be approached differently. That's awesome that people in Glasgow managed that, however given the numbers we had and the fact that the TopShop here is weirdly design with an escalator to get into it, it meant that as soon as one cop knew what was going on he just had to stroll across, so it did need to be a bit more hush hush. This isn't being elitist because everyone on the small demonstration which turned into the attempted occupation had met up before and discussed doing it.

I don't have any particular problems with this, but I maintain that if you can't get the numbers you shoud be tactically reassessing direct action anyway.


I just said in my last post that they were arguing against doing direct action and just wanted to march to Clegg's office for the nth time. Marching to an office =/= direct action, as Comrade Wolfie said, neither does standing outside a building.


There is nothing wrong with this if there are not enough numbers. Direct action has to be done within specific context. Of course I don't particularly know about the Sheffield example, yet direct action is not the only activity in which mobilisations and mobilisations should be participating in. The whole point of political tactics is to be thinking about it with the class in mind, what will benefit the class, raise its confidence, and win people over.

[Hit The North]

I don't understand why the advocates of direct action are allowing themselves to be limited by the alleged disapproval of the SWP, in the first place. If the ideas are good enough, you should be able to pull people into activity. If you can't win as many numbers as you want, then you re-evaluate what form of direct action is possible with the numbers you've got. How many people does it take to break into Nick Clegg's constituency office, under the cover of dark, and occupy it or whatever, if that's what you want to do?

I mean, I know that as a democratic centralist organisation it attempts to impose discipline over it own membership, but if the SWP can impose such a discipline on activists outside of its ranks, this is truly remarkable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB: In fact, these Direct Action freaks are either too busy slagging the SWP off, they have no time left for Direct Action -- or, they think that Direct Action is the same as slagging the SWP off...:lol:

[bricolage]

BTB: In fact, these Direct Action freaks are either too busy slagging the SWP off, they have no time left for Direct Action -- or, they think that Direct Action is the same as slagging the SWP off...:lol:
Because we all know that occasionally posting on revleft means you are incapable of doing anything else. Obviously all the real socialists are 24/7 smashing the state, and the ones that frequent this website are just phonies. Personally I'm just in it to be trendy.

[bricolage]

I do think there is a serious issue though of what we mean by 'direct action'. In its original form of IWW mass strikes or whatever these were vast efforts of collective worker organisation, nowadays a lot of what passes for it could be called stuntism more than anything else. I think then you are drawn between the two equally unsatisfactory positions of leftist recuperation where everything follows a set paradigm of marches, rallies and the rest, based on the, incorrect, assumption that by getting people one by one to accept 'revolutionary' ideas (usually by having them forced down their throat) we can get anywhere, and on the other hand the assumption that anything that goes beyond accepted political actions is somehow worth supporting. The UKUncut stuff has been mentioned here and the fact that it is 'non-hierarchical' and employs sit ins/blockades has led many people to be supportive of it, yet this ignores the content of the 'actions' (actions of course can only stem from 'activists', another problematic) which is essentially about balancing the books of the state and framing demands made upon it within the confines of what is affordable. I don't think it matters that there is tax evasion, saying it is an issue (outside of a vague moral objection, which I guess there is some merit to) says if that money didn't exist and couldn't be brought under state control we wouldn't make the same demands we currently do. So you then find yourselves acting under an organisation that sees John Lewis as a model to follow and anyway you get Polly Toynbee turning up I think something has gone wrong!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bricolage:


Because we all know that occasionally posting on revleft means you are incapable of doing anything else.

And what has this nice example of sarcasm got to do with Direct Action?


Obviously all the real socialists are 24/7 smashing the state, and the ones that frequent this website are just phonies.

And, by the looks of it, these 'real socialists' have got the state on its knees.


Personally I'm just in it to be trendy

Plainly...

[bricolage]

And what has this nice example of sarcasm got to do with Direct Action?
That you assumed posting occasional quips about the SWP on an internet forum means said people 'have no time left for Direct Action'.

And, by the looks of it, these 'real socialists' have got the state on its knees.Hence the 'nice example of sarcasm'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bricolage:


That you assumed posting occasional quips about the SWP on an internet forum means said people 'have no time left for Direct Action'.

Then may I suggest you by-pass the sarcasm stage and come right out with it in future? Or better still, note the irony in the comment of mine with which you took exception.


Hence the 'nice example of sarcasm'.

Mine too.:)

[ColonelCossack]

i have heard from a relative who's in a union, and he knows some people in the SWP, and he thinks that they are mostly in it for themselves. i, however, havent ever met a member, so i dont know

[Jimmie Higgins]

i have heard from a relative who's in a union, and he knows some people in the SWP, and he thinks that they are mostly in it for themselves. i, however, havent ever met a member, so i dont knowThe way I see it, a strong union movement needs a strong socialist core in the rank and file so trying to argue radical politics and strategy to my fellow workers is my way of trying to help build a stronger union.

But if your relative thinks that SWP union members are political out of opportunistic self-interest, I'd have to laugh because out of raw self-interest, the last thing I'd want to be is a radical in a bureaucratic union where you face hostility both from the bosses, some right-wing workers, and the union officials!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ColonelCossak:


i have heard from a relative who's in a union, and he knows some people in the SWP, and he thinks that they are mostly in it for themselves. i, however, havent ever met a member, so i dont know

To echo JH's comments above: Given the fact that the SWP gets so much bad press from both the capitalist and left-wing media, only an idiot -- or a masochist -- would be in the SWP 'for themselves'.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

I've been having a lot of conversations with SWP members recently about post revolution matters and they seem to all talk about council communism with a party very awkwardly and inexplicably crowbarred into it, as far as i can tell just because it chimes with the party line, which is odd because i was fairly sure that kind of council communism wasn't the official SWP line at all, so i am completely confused.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think you must have either misunderstood them or have been talking to a group of new members. Did you put what you have posted here to them?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've been having a lot of conversations with SWP members recently about post revolution matters and they seem to all talk about council communism with a party very awkwardly and inexplicably crowbarred into it, as far as i can tell just because it chimes with the party line, which is odd because i was fairly sure that kind of council communism wasn't the official SWP line at all, so i am completely confused.

Do you mind elaborating?

[Highfructosecornsyrup]

My Opinion on the SWP:

I've always been impressed by the literature put out by the SWP, some of the best stuff around, and I find myself in near agreement with most of the SWP's positions.

However, the prohibitions of factions is a deal breaker, I don't think democratic centralism is possible without being able to organize and meaningfully debate your position.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, because decisions about perspectives are taken at the national level, democratically at conference, then allowing factions in the run-up makes sense. Otherwise they foster merely academic disputes and divisions of no practical value. Hence the ban. However, if anyone wants to reverse this ban they can always raise this at conference and try to win a majority.

[Devrim]

I've been having a lot of conversations with SWP members recently about post revolution matters and they seem to all talk about council communism with a party very awkwardly and inexplicably crowbarred into it, as far as i can tell just because it chimes with the party line, which is odd because i was fairly sure that kind of council communism wasn't the official SWP line at all, so i am completely confused.

I am not surprised about this at all. I would imagine that the vast majority of Trotskyist groups argue for some sort of period of transition based upon the power of the workers' councils.

What identifies council communism as a tendency is not its instance on workers' councils, which is shared by many other currents, but more its specific political positions.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Alex Callinicos is a very impressive theorist. His debates are very well reasoned and argued and, though not a trot, i'm really quite impressed by him.

[Le Socialiste]

I know some people who are members as well. They appear to be content with the party, though I've heard plenty of criticisms regarding it. I don't know enough details as to say whether or not it's worth joing, but if you don't necessarily agree with their ideology I'd suggest searching for a party or organization that better fits yours. If you find yourself unable to find any, you might consider it. But it's ultimately up to you.