Fundimental differences between the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party

[paranoidandroid]

What are the fundamental differences between the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Parties in the UK and Ireland?

[Red Shaker]

There are none.

[Q]

Moved from /theory to /learning.

And 'none' might be a little exaggerating it, as there are many differences, but on a fundamental level it is quite true: Both organisations have very similar organisational forms, both focus on agitation in their media, both aim to radicalise the working class through 'action'. In fact, historically both organisations have common roots up until the 1950's in the UK. The initial split was over remaining to work in the Labour party or not, the group around Tony Cliff thought it was better to work outside and was able to capitalise on the anti-Vietnam war movement.

[The Idler]

Ted Grant wanted to be in charge, and so did Tony Cliff.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So of the three people that responded, no one actually bothered to answer the question? I assume paranoidandroid meant to ask about the Socialist Party of England and Wales, the wonderfully-named SPEW, the section of the Committee for a Workers' International in England.

Both SPEW and the SWP are ostensibly Trotskyist organisations. What separates them is, chiefly, their attitude toward the Soviet Union. SPEW hold, at least on paper, that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state, and that it should have been defended from capitalist restoration. Cliff's group proclaimed that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist around the time of the Korean War, and did not support the DPRK and the Soviet Union in that conflict.

The SWP have always organised outside the Labour Party - whether due to conviction or due to the stranglehold Healy's group, The Club, had on entryists into the Labour party. The SPEW used to be part of a group, Militant, which exclusively organised inside the Labour Party. Now they mostly organise outside it - since the split with Grant's IMT.

[Art Vandelay]

Since you haven't really received much of a full or straightforward response, I will do my best to give you a rundown on the various points of disagreement between the two organizations.

The SWP is the flagship party of the International Socialist Tendency, which is an international grouping of 'unorthodox' Trotskyists organizations, whose main leading theoretician (until his passing) was Tony Cliff. He put forth an analysis of the USSR as state-capitalist, as opposed to the traditional Trotskyist notion which characterized it as a degenerated workers state. The term Cliff used to define the USSR was 'bureaucratic state-capitalism,' a theory later expounded upon by other leading members of the SWP. It was intended to differ from Shachtman's theory of 'bureaucratic collectivism,' as well as various other strains of the state-capitalist theory. This analysis was then extended to the countries that SPEW and the CWI would characterize as 'deformed workers states.' The other two main theories generally associated with the SWP are 'deflected permanent revolution,' as well as the 'permanent arms economy.' The theory of deflected permanent revolution came from Cliff attempting to build upon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, in an effort to explain how various countries in areas of the world previously dominated by colonialism, had managed to overthrow imperialist powers and establish 'bureaucratic state-capitalist regimes.' Cliff's answer was that in places where a revolutionary proletariat does not exist, the overthrow of imperialist powers could be undertaken by a movement led by the intelligentsia. The notion of the 'permanent arms economy' is highly controversial, from what I understand, even within the SWP. What it essentially amounts to is an attempt to explain the long boom of global capital, following WWII and is another analysis which is unique to the SWP.

In contrast to those theories unique to the SWP, the CWI upholds the USSR and its various satellites as 'degenerated' and 'deformed' workers states, respectively. This is generally seen as the more 'orthodox' or 'traditional' Trotskyist analysis, however the value of the continued application of the DWS analysis, leading up to and following WWII is obviously highly controversial within the Trotskyist tradition. Perhaps most unique of all to the CWI tradition, which essentially also includes the IMT, is the theory of entryism developed by Ted Grant. His version of entryism can be seen to differ from the traditional notion of the term, as well as from Pablo's 'deep entryism.' His argument was that Marxists should work: "inside, outside and around the mass organisations" for "workers begin to move through their own traditional mass organisations" and therefore "outside the workers' movement, there's nothing". Like the theories associated with Tony Cliff and the IST, Grant's notion of entryism is highly debated within the Trotskyist movement, as is nearly every theory which has been developed during post-Trotsky Trotskyism.

Hope that helps.

[Q]

So of the three people that responded, no one actually bothered to answer the question?
Nah, I was just answering the question what on a fundamental level differentiates the SPEW from the SWP, which is very little. You on the other hand give a little history lesson, focusing on the differences (none of which seem to be on a fundamental level). Both are valid ways to answer this, I suppose.

If anything really differentiates both groups on a fundamental level, it is their approach to programme: Whereas the SPEW doesn't have a programme (in the sense of a document), they do hold a 'transitional method' which feeds demands given a certain situation (say a strike or an event), this is often somewhat of a 'wishlist' that aims to spur the masses into action in order to radicalise them.

The SWP on the other hand has a very explicit anti-programmatic stance. Tony Cliff likened a programme with"tying the organisations' hands to its back". It can't put up a proper fight with a programme that just 'gets in the way'. What Cliff feared was a programme that could keep him and his leadership in check by the rank and file. This has fueled immense zig-zag opportunism over the years, whatever seemed most opportune at the time. Sadly, the splinters that the SWP has produced in recent times don't fare much better here.

[Rottenfruit]

What are the fundamental differences between the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Parties in the UK and Ireland?
Dont know alot about sp, but swp are notorious rape apologists, united agasint facisim which is a swp front has Azad Ali who is a hardcore antisemite and a homophobe as a vice chairman ,

Martin Smith the rapist that swp protected is a supporter of Gilad Atzmon a man who has claimed that burning down synagogues is a rational act , so yeah stay away from swp